181213 agenda

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

6.00pm Wednesday 18 December, 2013

*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***

VENUE:

Reception Room,

Bendigo Town Hall,

Hargreaves Street, Bendigo

NEXT MEETING:

Wednesday 22 January, 2014

Bendigo Town Hall

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

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

http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/

Council Vision

Our residents can live healthy and satisfying lives in our vibrant City and region, confident in its growth and future.

Council Purpose and Values Councillors have made a commitment in their Code of Conduct to working and leading together in:

Making informed, balanced and objective decisions

Acting honestly

Taking responsible financial decisions

Ensuring good governance

Being inclusive in their activities and sharing information with others

Learning from each other

Respecting each other's undertakings

Being respectful in their interactions with others

Communicating clearly about decisions that have been made

Fulfilling their undertakings and being clear when this is not possible

Working positively with the media to ensure community members are provided with accurate information

Themes

Planning for Growth

Liveability

Productivity

Sustainability

Good Governance and Decision-Making

ORDINARY MEETING WEDNESDAY 18 DECEMBER 2013

ORDER OF BUSINESS:

ITEM PRECIS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 5

PRAYER 5

CODE OF CONDUCT 5

PRESENT 5

APOLOGIES 5

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 5

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6

CR CHAPMAN'S REPORT 6

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 9

1.1 Petition: Traffic Management Issues around

Strathfieldsaye Primary School

9

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 12

2.1 Planning Scheme Amendment C203 - Permanent Heritage

Overlay at 384-386 Napier Street, White Hills for

Consideration of Submissions - Refer to Panel

12

2.2 Planning Scheme Amendment C193 - 428 Calder Highway,

Maiden Gully - Request to Consider Authorisation

19

2.3 31 Curnow Street, Golden Square 3555 - 2 Lot

Subdivision of Land

31

2.4 35 Scullys Lane, Heathcote 3523 (to be created by the

Subdivision of 42 Ross Street) - Amended Permit to Allow

for the Removal of Vegetation from within the Road

Reserve

42

2.5 69 Bassett Drive, Strathfieldsaye 3551 - Two Lot

Subdivision of Land and Construction of Two Dwellings

(Staged)

48

2.6 138 Crook Street, Strathdale 3550 - Use of Land for a

Childcare Centreand Waiver of Car Parking

56

3. LIVEABILITY 63

3.1 Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice

Review

63

3.2 Response to Petition: Lake Tom Thumb 80

4. PRODUCTIVITY 84

4.1 Intensive Animal Industry Study 84

5. SUSTAINABILITY 90

6. GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DECISION-MAKING 91

6.1 Contracts Awarded Under Delegation 91

6.2 Record of Assemblies 92

6.3 Bendigo Livestock Exchange Annual Report 2012-13 99

6.4 Delegation of Town Planning Powers - A Response to the

Independent Review

102

7. URGENT BUSINESS 106

8. NOTICES OF MOTION 107

8.1 Notice of Motion: Independent Review Recommendation

regarding City Futures Directorate

107

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 108

10. MAYOR'S REPORT 108

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 108

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 108

____________________________

CRAIG NIEMANN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2013

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

PRAYER

CODE OF CONDUCT

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow 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. 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.


PAGE 6

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.

CR CHAPMAN'S REPORT


PAGE 7

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Government Act 1989 (as amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest must 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 interests must also include the classification of the interest (in circumstances where a Councillor has made a Declaration in writing, the classification of the interest 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 applicable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party (g) indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity (h) conflicting personal interest A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken. Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.


PAGE 8

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 4 December, 2013. The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday 4 December, 2013 at 6:00pm.

Petition: Reinstatement of Cobblestones at the Entrance of Golden Glade, Strathdale

Planning Scheme Amendment C183 - Girton Grammar - Adoption of Amendment

Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C173 - Rezoning Land in Holdsworth Road and Hobson Street, North Bendigo to Residential 1 Zoe and Public Park and Recreation Zone

15 Towers Street, Flora Hill - 2-Lot Subdivision

90 Mundy Street, Kennington - Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of a New Single Storey Dwelling

Draft Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy

Awarding of Contract No: CT000098 Reseal of Various Roads

Record of Assemblies

Quarterly Finance Report as at 30 September 2013

Amendments to Finance Policies

Potential Sale of Three Properties 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 4 December, 2013, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.


PAGE 9

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

1.1 PETITION: TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES AROUND STRATHFIELDSAYE PRIMARY SCHOOL

Petitions and joint letters with ten (10) or more signatures are included in the agenda or tabled at the meeting, unless there is a separate legal process for considering the petition or joint letter, as there is for planning submissions or submissions following public notices (Section 223 LGA)].

A joint letter has been received from students of the Strathfieldsaye Primary School concerned about the safety of parents and children in Strathfieldsaye because of traffic conditions around the two primary schools - Strathfieldsaye Primary School and St Francis of the Fields. The body of the letter is outlined below:

"… In particular, the intersections we are most concerned about are:

Club Court and Strathfieldsaye Road

Uxbridge Street and Strathfieldsaye Road

Apsley Street and Uxbridge Street

Blucher Street and Strathfieldsaye Road These intersections provide access to two large primary schools, two childcare centres, a

kindergarten, two sports complexes and a large shopping centre. Strathfieldsaye has seen rapid growth in recent years with the development of many new residential estates. The intersections near the two schools have become extremely busy.

Some of the grade 5 and 6 students from Strathfieldsaye Primary School have formed a

group to address the issue of the traffic problems. This group (LAG: Local Action Group) has been meeting weekly for the last few months to discuss the issue and plan for action to raise community and government awareness of the seriousness of the safety issues surrounding these intersections. Our group has been brainstorming ideas to help control this traffic and making it safer. We have thought about the possibility of putting in traffic lights and roundabouts.


PAGE 10

"There are a huge number of vehicles using these intersections especially at the end of the school day when children are being collected from the two large schools, local kindergarten and childcare centres as well as parents going to the local shopping centre. This results in traffic jams and makes it both difficult and dangerous to use the intersections. It is also very dangerous for children of all ages who have to cross these roads when walking home. Cars have been seen to wait more than six minutes to exit Uxbridge Street into Strathfieldsaye Road. The drivers become extremely frustrated with the traffic conditions and sometimes resort to taking risks to exist side streets into the main Strathfieldsaye Road.

The intersection of Tannery Lane and Club Court with Strathfieldsaye Road is particularly

dangerous as it is positioned on a bend, less than 100 metres from an 80km/hour speed limit zone.

On Thursday 28 November, we set out to gather some information to support our

concerns. For a forty minute period from 3:10pm to 3:50pm we counted the number of cars passing through each of the three main intersections bordering our school. Here is the total number of cars counted at each intersection in this forty minute period:

1. Tannery Lane/Club Court/Strathfieldsaye Road = 924 Cars 2. Uxbridge Street/Strathfieldsaye Road = 962 Cars 3. Aspley Street/Uxbridge Street = 281 Cars This action also caught the attention of the local media [as you can see in the enclosed

newspaper articles 29 November and 30 November 2013]. We want something to be done to improve safety and traffic flow through these

intersections. It needs to be done as soon as possible because it is continuing to get worse all the time. We hope you will support us in trying to get changes made to these intersections for the safety of all the children and adults in Strathfieldsaye. Accidents in at these intersections are increasing in frequency and severity. Traffic lights or roundabouts need to be installed as soon as possible to prevent further accidents and possible fatalities".

Signatures - 22

Officer Comment (Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets):

The traffic management concerns outlined in this joint letter result from roads and intersections owned and managed by VicRoads. A letter has been sent to Mal Kersting, Regional Director, VicRoads – Northern Region seeking his urgent advice on VicRoads’ preparedness to undertake a traffic study and development of a comprehensive traffic management plan for Strathfieldsaye Road.


PAGE 11

RECOMMENDATION

That the joint letter be received and noted and that a Council report be prepared following a formal response from VicRoads.

Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2013

PAGE 12

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C203 - PERMANENT HERITAGE OVERLAY AT 384-386 NAPIER STREET, WHITE HILLS FOR CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS - REFER TO PANEL

Document Information

Author Emma Bryant, Coordinator of Policy and Processes Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Amendment details: Apply a permanent heritage overlay to 384-386 Napier Street, White Hills.

No. of submissions: 7 Key issues: Heritage significance of the property

Condition of the place

Recommendation: Council adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions in this report and request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider the outstanding submission/s.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2013)

Planning for Growth

Our quality of life is maintained as our City's population and economy grows.

Productivity

A diverse, strong and growing economy supports community resilience.

Sustainability

Strengthen the links between Greater Bendigo's past and future by protection and contemporary re-use of our heritage assets.

Background Information

The key steps in the amendment process are summarised below:


PAGE 13

In May 2012 the City received a demolition enquiry for the property. The City’s Heritage Advisor inspected the property (internally and externally) and determined that it was historically significant and should not be demolished. The Planning Unit then attempted to negotiate with the enquirer to retain the main buildings and allow some minor demolition, subdivision and some new development. The City received an application on 14 June 2013 under the Building Act 1993 to demolish all the buildings on the land. The Heritage Adviser and a representative of the Building and Property Unit again inspected the building internally and confirmed previous findings. In June 2013 a heritage assessment report was submitted to Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee who recommended that demolition be refused and an interim heritage overlay be requested.

Previous Council Decisions 31 July 2013 – Council resolved to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to apply a permanent heritage overlay to the land. At the same time Council requested the Minister to apply an interim heritage overlay to the land. The Minister has not made a decision on this request.


PAGE 14

Report

An Explanatory Report is attached and details the purpose, effect of the amendment and provides the strategic justification for the amendment as required. Key issues identified in the Explanatory Report are summarised below. Land affected by the Amendment 384 – 386 Napier Street, White Hills is 4,015 square metres in size. It is zoned Residential 1 and is surrounded by residential development to the south and north, with Weeroona Secondary College across the road to the east and the train line and Bobs Street to the west.

Figure 1 384 – 386 Napier Street, White Hills

What the Amendment does Applies a permanent heritage overlay (HO 865) to 384-386 Napier Street, White Hills. Consultation/Communication Exhibition Procedures The Amendment was exhibited for one month from 3 October 2013 to 4 November 2013. Notice was provided in the following manner:

Individual notices to owners and occupiers of land affected by the Amendment. Notices to prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act. Notices to all authorities materially affected under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act.


PAGE 15

Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 2 October 2013 and 5 October 2013. Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 3 October 2013. Access on-line.

Attended an on-site meeting with some of the owners to discuss development options during exhibition. Following exhibition we contacted objecting submitters to discuss their concerns. Submitters 7 were not interested in further discussions. We have held further discussions with submitters 3 and 6 regarding development options. Submissions 7 were received during the exhibition period as per below.

Number Submitter Name Supports/Objects Officer Recommendation

1 Environment Protection Authority Victoria

Support No change to Amendment

2 Vic Roads - Northern Region

Support. Heritage Overlay will not affect any future Midland Highway duplication.

No change to Amendment

3 L A Davis, G A Chandler & A J Chandler

Object. House in poor condition and vandalised, brick nogging not as extensive as report states, City previously supported demolition of outbuildings, ask for scope of works that would be approved.

No change to Amendment, make minor changes to heritage place report re brick nogging, City consistent in previous correspondence in saying that kitchen outbuilding not supported for demolition, will provide a broad scope of works that could be approved, as discussed with submitter on site. Refer submission to an independent panel.

4 National Trust of Aust - Bendigo & District Branch

Support. Intact original complex, unusual outbuilding/kitchen and nogging, opportunity for limited development at rear and side and restoration, protect early plantings and front fence.

No change to Amendment but possible changes to heritage place report. Refer to independent panel.

5 Public Transport Victoria

Support No change to Amendment

6 I N Terrill Object. Residential No change to amendment,


PAGE 16

Number Submitter Name Supports/Objects Officer Recommendation

Strategy recommends higher densities along transport routes, outbuildings not significant, condition, current building standards, allow demolition with some public area and interpretation instead.

make minor changes to heritage place report, refer submission to an independent panel

7 A N Whitechurch & W G Edwards

Object. Property owned by family for 117 years, condition of building, building is a private matter and Council should only protect public heritage assets, previous demolitions allowed along Napier Street.

No change to Amendment. Refer submission to independent panel.

Key Issues Heritage Significance Submitters 3 and 6 raise some issues with the Heritage Place report and subsequently the significance of the Place. The extent of brick nogging has been questioned. On further inspection, it is acknowledged that the brick nogging is not as extensive as first thought; it was difficult to observe all of it as it is within the building. However, this does not significantly affect the overall significance as the nogging is only a contributor and not the main reason for the place’s significance. Submitters 3 and 6 also question the significance of the outbuildings, not including the kitchen which is now attached to the main building. The Heritage Place Report does in fact state that only the main building and kitchen is of heritage significance and not the other outbuildings. Submission 6 acknowledges that the house has historical significance. Submission 7 objects to heritage protection in general for the property as it is privately owned but does not question the significance assessment. Council protects many historic buildings that are privately owned because of their contribution to existing and future generations. Submission 4 supports the Amendment but requests that early plantings and the fence are also protected. The Heritage report does mention the importance of the garden setting in general and the proposed Heritage Overlay does include tree controls so a planning permit would be required to remove any vegetation. The fence has not been considered as important at this stage.


PAGE 17

Condition Submissions 3, 6 and 7 state that the building is too dilapidated to be restored. The heritage advisor and a member of the Building department inspected the buildings and determined that they were in fair condition overall with parts in poor condition, and that the villa was structurally sound and restorable. Submission 6 states that because some parts of the building would need to be totally reconstructed (kitchen and verandah) significance will be lost. We believe that parts of these structures could be retained and repaired and some of the materials re-used. Future development options Submission 3 asks for development options if the villa was to be retained. Discussions have been held with these submitters about possible development options. Subdivision of the lot could occur without significantly impacting on the significance of the place as long as a reasonable buffer was retained around the property and some views from the corner of Napier Street and Powell Street. A road reserve coming off Powell Street in front of the villa would allow some views to the main villa and allow rear access to allotments facing Napier Street. Subdivision and development at medium to high density could occur behind the villa. Submission 4 from the National Trust acknowledges that some development could occur on the site. Submission 6 states that Council’s Residential Strategy encourages higher densities along transport routes and that retaining the building does not support that. In response the Bendigo Planning Scheme also states that buildings of heritage significance should be protected. By allowing subdivision and development as discussed above, both strategies, protecting heritage and encouraging development, can be supported. Submission 6 also suggests demolition be allowed with an interpretation model to explain the history of the site instead. This option is not supported as the heritage significance of the site will be lost.

Conclusion

The villa with separate kitchen building at 384-386 Napier Street White Hills has been identified as being of local significance to the City of Greater Bendigo. It is recommended that Council request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel to consider submissions made to the amendment.

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 the amendment is then split into two parts. 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;


PAGE 18

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. Recommend referring unresolved submissions to Panel appointed by Minister for Planning.

Resource Implications

The application of the Heritage Overlay to this property will have a minor impact on the future resources of the City for assessing future planning applications. Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for a panel. The City is responsible for payment of statutory fees and costs incurred in the processing of the amendment. This will include additional estimated costs of $5,000 in association with holding a panel.

Attachments

Copy of submissions (7) Explanatory report

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions in this report; and; 2. Request the Minster for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider all

outstanding submissions.


PAGE 19

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C193 - 428 CALDER HIGHWAY, MAIDEN GULLY - REQUEST TO CONSIDER AUTHORISATION


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

Summary/Purpose

Amendment details: This is a combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application. The planning scheme amendment proposes to:

Rezone land at 428 Calder Highway, Maiden Gully from Farming Zone to Residential 1 Zone and;

Apply the Bushfire Management Overlay to the land.

The planning permit application is to:

Subdivide the land into 128 lots.

Remove native vegetation.

Proponent: Maiden Gully Developments Pty Ltd

Key issues:

Development opportunities in the Urban Growth Boundary, bushfire hazards, native vegetation removal, the design of the subdivision layout plan and access to the land.

Recommendation: Council request the Minister for Planning to authorise Amendment 193 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, and when authorised, exhibit the Amendment.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity



PAGE 20


This Amendment was initially to rezone the land to Residential 1 Zone land only. Further to initial consultations with various internal and external referral authorities, the proponent changed the Amendment to concurrently apply for a permit to subdivide the land. The key steps in the amendment process are summarised below:


PAGE 21

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. Key issues identified in the Explanatory Report are summarised below. (Full copy attached). Land affected by the Amendment and by the planning permit The land affected by the Amendment is also the land affected by the planning permit. The land is known as 428 Calder Highway, Maiden Gully or CA51, CA51A and CA52, Section L, Parish of Sandhurst. It has a total area of approximately 14.4 hectares. It is bounded to the south by the Calder Highway, to the north-west by Sparrowhawk Road and to the east by Doles Road. The land has historically been used for grazing. It now contains a single dwelling and associated sheds, stockyards and fencing. The land is covered with native vegetation as well as introduced species throughout. The land is of an undulating topography. The highest point of the land is in its eastern part and its lowest point is in the south-west on the corner of Sparrowhawk Road and Calder Highway. From centrally located ridge lines, the land generally slopes toward Sparrowhawk Road to the north and Calder Highway to the South. It also has a number of rock outcrops throughout and appears to have a shallow soil profile. The land is zoned Farming Zone. A small part of it in the north is covered by the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 and the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2. The land across Doles Road to the east and the Calder Highway to the south are zoned Farming Zone and are also under native vegetation. The northern half of Doles Road reserve is covered with vegetation. Across Sparrowhawk Road to the west, the land is zoned Residential 1 Zone and already developed with dwellings. Across Sparrowhawk Road to the north, the land is zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone and is very heavily vegetated and covered by the Bushfire Management Overlay.


PAGE 22

Figure 1: The current zoning of the subject land and of its surrounding.

Figure 2: An aerial view of the land and of its surrounding

What the Amendment does The amendment proposes to:

Rezone 428 Calder Highway, Maiden Gully from Farming Zone to Residential 1 Zone and to;

Apply the Bushfire Management Overlay to the land.


PAGE 23

What the permit does The planning permit application (DS/873/2013) is to subdivide the land into 128 lots and to remove native vegetation. The lot sizes vary from 471 to 4250 square metres in area with a net residential density of 11 lots per hectare.

Figure 3: The proposed subdivision layout plan

The native vegetation to be removed consists of three patches shown as Site 1, 2 and 3 on the map below and 29 scattered trees. Sites 4 and 5 form part of the road reserves and contain vegetation which is not proposed to be removed under this permit. The amount of vegetation to be removed is 4.68 hectares of Box-Ironbark Forest of Medium Conservation Significance and 1.3 hectares of Heathy Dry Forest of Low Conservation Significance. The 29 scattered trees of Low Conservation Significance to be removed are spread across the land.


PAGE 24

Figure 4: The patches of native vegetation and scattered trees proposed to be removed.

Social, Economic and Environmental impacts Environmental Impacts Native vegetation removal The most significant environmental impact of the Amendment is the loss of the native vegetation. However, the ecological assessment of the land carried out by G & B Cheers (August 2011) found out that the land contains no threatened flora or fauna species. The vegetation to be removed was determined to be either Low or Medium Conservation Significance and no Victorian threatened or vulnerable wildlife species was sighted on or within a radius of 5 kilometres of the land. The Department of Environment and Primary Industries and the City’s Parks and Natural Environment Unit support the Amendment and have advised that all the vegetation removed be offset off-site for best outcome. Heritage The existing dwelling on the land dates circa 1920 and the proposed subdivision will require its demolition. The land is not covered by the Heritage Overlay. Due to its date of construction, the formal comments of the Heritage Advisory Committee will be sought on the demolition of the dwelling at the exhibition stage of the Amendment.


PAGE 25

Soil contamination Given the previous uses of the land (farming) and the existence of historic mineshafts on nearby lands, the land potentially contains contaminated soil. Geotechnical Testing Services have investigated the land to determine any potential for soil contamination. The findings of the investigation are that the land would not pose any risks for the human health if used for residential purposes. Bushfire hazards The land is prone to bushfire risks because of the heavily vegetated land across Sparrowhawk Road to the north. A preliminary fire risk assessment for the land carried out by Phil Neander & Associates (December 2011) confirms this. This is being addressed by applying the Bushfire Management Overlay to the land. Social impacts Locational advantage The land is within the Bendigo Urban Growth Boundary. It is located approximately 4.5 kilometres from the Bendigo Town Centre and 2.5 kilometres from the Maiden Gully village Centre. The amendment will achieve a positive social outcome in that it will facilitate additional housing opportunities adjacent to an established residential neighbourhood and in close proximity to a variety of local and regional health, education, recreational, community and retailing facilities. Vehicular movement/ road safety A Traffic Impact Assessment Report (August 2012) was done for the proposal by Trafficworks. The Report states that when completed, the development will generate up to 1,300 vehicle trips per day to and from the external road network. The Report states that the existing road network will be able to cater for the additional traffic including public transport and poses no road safety issue subject to the intersections of Sparrowhawk Road/Calder Highway and Doles Road/Calder Highway being upgraded. Neighbouring land uses At approximately 500 metres to the east of the land are the Bendigo Go-Kart Club and some Industrial 3 Zone land. As the Industrial 3 Zone land is for light industrial uses only, it will have no unacceptable impact on the proposed use of the subject land. The Bendigo Go-Kart Club however, can potentially have an adverse impact on the development of the land. A report was prepared by Audiometric and Acoustic Services (September 2011) to assess noise related impacts on the proposed development. The report concludes that the noise generated from the use of the neighbouring Go-Kart Club is not audible from the subject land. The preliminary comments of the Environment Protection Authority are also being sought.


PAGE 26

Economic impacts Additional employment opportunities The proposal will have positive economic effects by delivering employment opportunities during construction and providing additional residential land to cater for future residents. The land is within the Urban Growth Boundary and it is also connected to all basic services and its development for residential purposes will contribute to maximise the use of the existing services. Impacts on agricultural production The rezoning will have no adverse impact on agricultural production because the land is no longer being used for large scale agricultural production. It is surrounded by non-agricultural land uses and the soils are not suitable for agriculture. The Amendment will have no unacceptable environment, social or economic impacts. Any native vegetation loss will be offset off-site for best outcome. There are no existing incompatible land uses in the immediate vicinity which will impact on the future residents. As the land is not being used for any viable agricultural activity, its rezoning for residential purposes will have no adverse economic impact. Strategic justification – Planning context The Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme: State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11 - Settlement

This clause seeks to ensure planning facilitates sustainable development taking advantage of existing settlement patterns and investment in infrastructure. The Amendment will provide the opportunity for the urban development of land within the designated Urban Growth Boundary thereby initiating a more efficient use of urban land.

Clause 11.02-1 (Supply of urban land) to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses.

The land is within the Urban Growth Boundary and given its size, the proposed rezoning will have minimal impact on the actual demand or forecast of residential land supply.

Clause 12 – (Environment and Landscape Values) has as objective to assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals.


PAGE 27

The assessment of native flora and fauna within the site did not identify any threatened species or viable habitats of those species previously recorded in the vicinity. The vegetation has been assessed as being of low to medium conservation significance.

Clause 12.01-2 (Native vegetation management) has as objective to achieve a net gain in the extent and quality of native vegetation.

The vegetation proposed to be removed will be offset off-site to facilitate the residential development of the land.

Clause 13.03-1 (Use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land) has as objective to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.

Preliminary investigations indicate that the land can be used for residential purposes.

Clause 13.05-1 (Bushfire planning strategies and principles) has as objective to assist to strengthen community resilience to bushfire.

The land has been identified as being prone to bushfire risks. The Bushfire Management Overlay will be applied to the land in consultation with the Country Fire Authority.

Clause 16 –1 (Housing) aims to provide housing/subdivisions in a location with access to physical and community infrastructure.

The subject site abuts the existing urban area of Maiden Gully and is approximately 2.5 kilometres m from the Maiden Gully village centre and 4.5 kilometres from the Bendigo Town Centre.

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21.05 (Settlement)

This policy identifies the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is to be used to define the limits of the Bendigo urban area and promote strategies for new development within this boundary. Further to this, the clause ensures re-zoning requests for rural land within the UGB, but not identified for future expansion, is assessed on their merits. Including the contribution they may make to defining existing zoned residential land, their limitations resulting from constraints to development (including Ecological Vegetation Class mapping) and their capability for agricultural land use.

Clause 21.06 (Housing) promotes the application of the Residential 1 Zone to serviced or readily serviced areas within Bendigo. The Amendment meets the relevant objectives of this clause by providing a supply of land through a more efficient use of land for conventional residential development within the UGB.


PAGE 28

Clause 22.01 (Development at the Urban-Forest interface policy). The significance of the vegetation has been assessed as low to medium and in order to best resolve bushfire risks, the agreed approach has been to offset most of the vegetation off-site. A forest interface buffer will be retained and provided at the northern part of the land.

Consultation/Communication

City planning officers have consulted with the relevant internal departments and external authorities including statutory referral authorities for the Amendment and proposed subdivision. In particular, there has been extensive consultation with the City’s Parks and Natural Environment regarding the proposed vegetation removal. In its preliminary comments, the CFA raised concerns that the Amendment did not adequately consider the bushfire hazards. To address this concern, it is now proposed to apply the Bushfire Management Overlay to the land and to include an application for a permit to subdivide the land. The grant of a permit to subdivide the land concurrently with its rezoning will ensure that the development standards comply with the defendable space requirements through permit conditions or any other planning mechanism. The CFA are currently reviewing supplementary documentation for the Amendment including the Bushfire Management Statement and their comments are being awaited. The City Parks and Natural Reserves Unit generally consents to the Amendment but has raised concerns regarding how the trees to be retained in the road reserves will be protected at the development stage. This can be addressed through permit conditions on the draft permit. They would also like some vegetation to remain in areas set aside for public open spaces. The Department of Environment and Primary Industries supports the Amendment and advises that all the vegetation should be removed and the required offset be provided off-site. This will also help address bushfire risks. As the land abuts the Calder Highway, VicRoads has been consulted. VicRoads’ preliminary advice is that no new vehicle access be created to the Calder Highway and that a strip along the southern boundary of the land be excised and included in the Calder Highway road reserves for a future bike path. A Traffic Impact Assessment which supports the rezoning and development of the land has also been submitted. VicRoads is currently reviewing the Report for further comments. The City Strategy Unit consent to the Amendment because the land is within the UGB, as long as a number of issues can be addressed including surrounding land uses, access, vegetation and the buffer with the nearby industrial land. The Strategy Unit also expressed concern with the subdivision layout, in particular the interface with the Calder Highway and diversity of lot sizes. The issues raised have been addressed and the subdivision layout will be revised prior to public exhibition. The Statutory Planning subdivision team also raised a concern about the treatment of the interface between the land and the Calder Highway, which is being addressed. The Presentation and Assets Unit did not object to the Amendment or to the grant of a permit subject to conditions to be put on the draft permit.


PAGE 29

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.

Conclusion

The Amendment and permit application seek to allow for the development of the land for residential purposes and removal of native vegetation. Although it is zoned Farming Zone, it is not being used for any significant farming activity. The proponent has carried out a number of conclusive preliminary investigations including bushfire risks, the quality of vegetation, traffic, heritage and potential for soil contamination. It is recommended that Council seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the Amendment and draft planning permit.

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.

Requesting further information. The Amendment application documentation is not sufficiently comprehensive for a request to the Minster at this time and would require considerable financial investment to address all issues. It is considered that further investigation would not resolve the critical issues of the proposal.


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/873/2013


PAGE 30

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare Amendment C193

to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. 2. Agree to the request to consider the application for the planning permit concurrently

with the Amendment. 3. When authorised by the Minister, exhibit Amendment C193 to the Greater Bendigo

Planning Scheme and the planning permit application giving notification as required for the minimum statutory exhibition period of one month.


PAGE 31

2.3 31 CURNOW STREET, GOLDEN SQUARE 3555 - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND


Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: 2 lot subdivision of land

Application No: DS/745/2013

Applicant: Colin M Nankervis Consulting Engineers

Land: 31 Curnow Street, GOLDEN SQUARE 3555

Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Overlays: There are no overlays

No. of objections: 1

Consultation meeting held:

A consultation meeting was held on 29 October 2013.

Key considerations: Whether the proposed subdivision will cause increased drainage problems for the abutting neighbours.

Conclusion: Appropriate infrastructure will be able to cater for stormwater generated by the proposed subdivision. The subdivision meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme and a permit should be granted, subject to conditions.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity


Sustainability



PAGE 32

Report

Subject Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated in an established residential area of Golden Square, on the corner of Curnow Street and Maple Street. The site is irregular in shape with an area of 1,707 square metres. A brick dwelling and an associated shed are located on the northern part of the site. These buildings have frontage to Curnow Street. A large garden, comprising of mostly native trees and shrubs surrounds the dwelling. Two small native trees are located along the Curnow Street frontage. A colorbond fence is located along the north western part of the Curnow Street frontage. The land slopes significantly to the southern end of the site. A 4.5 metre by 2 metre wide electricity easement is located on the eastern boundary. A drainage easement crosses the front of the abutting property at 109 Maple Street. Brick dwellings on reasonably large residential lots abut the site to the south and west. The surrounding area is comprised of lots that range in area from 450 square metres to 2,670 square metres. A mixture of small to medium, conventional, detached family homes are constructed on these lots. The site is located within reasonable proximity to the Central Business District, Golden Square shopping precinct, Golden Square recreational sporting facilities, schools and St John of God Hospital. The new vacant site will be fully serviced.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector’s property is marked with a star.


PAGE 33

Proposal

The applicant seeks approval for a two lot subdivision at 31 Curnow Street, Golden Square. It is proposed to subdivide the side yard off from the existing dwelling to create a new vacant lot suitable for a dwelling. The area of Lot 1 will be 1089 square metres, with a 28 metre wide frontage to Curnow Street and 32 metre wide frontage to Maple Street. The area of Lot 2 will be 618 square metres, with a 10.3 metre wide frontage to Curnow Street.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The site is in the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). A permit is required under the zone provisions to subdivide the site. The following provisions of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the application: State Planning Policy Framework:

Regional development (clause 11.05).

Urban environment (clause 15.01).

Sustainable development (clause 15.02).

Integrated transport (clause 18.01).

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).

Environment (clause 21.08).

Infrastructure (clause 21.09).

Reference documents (clause 21.10). Local Planning Policies:

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).

Golden Square residential character policy (clause 22.15) Other relevant provisions:

Residential Subdivision (clause 56)

Decision guidelines (clause 65).

Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).


PAGE 34


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

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, one objection was received, with the grounds of objection being:

The proposed subdivision will cause an increase in stormwater entering their property and potentially cause damage to the garden and fence.

The objection is discussed below.

Planning Assessment

Drainage Issues

The site falls significantly to a gully that has served as a natural drainage line which runs in a north – south direction through the site. This drainage line continues to drain stormwater run-off through the objector’s property to Crown land. A contour map shows that there is a fall of 5.5 metres to the lowest point of the site (see Attachment 2). A 6 metre wide drainage easement runs through the front area of the objector’s property to the Crown land.

The objector has two main concerns. First, that their front yard has been significantly flooded after some major rain events in the past. The objector stated that the proposed subdivision, in particular future site preparation or building works on Lot 2, will exacerbate drainage problems into the front area of their property, thus causing potential damage to their established garden and fencing. The slope of the land will mean that any future dwelling constructed on Lot 2 will require a site cut. The creation of a site cut will potentially increase the amount of stormwater run-off. However, this drainage run-off will continue to drain into the gully. The proposed subdivision will require the installation of drainage infrastructure to capture this run-off. There are different ways of installing the infrastructure, including either laying a drainage pipe or boring a drainage pipe across the objector’s property. The developer will be required to submit a detailed drainage plan which shows how appropriate drainage infrastructure will be able to manage the flow of stormwater from the site.


PAGE 35

Second, the objector has expressed concern that the developer will require access through their property to install drainage infrastructure, which will result in disruption to their lives. In response to this point, any works associated with development can be disruptive for a period of time. The lowest part of the objector’s garden is generally clear of planted vegetation. However, a small area of the established garden beds and driveway may be impacted by the proposed drainage works. The developer has a legal right to drain stormwater by some means through the objector’s property via the existing drainage easement. The easement is quite wide and provides an opportunity for the developer to undertake the works in a way that will minimise any physical disturbance to the garden beds and driveway. There is scope for the developer and the objector to negotiate an acceptable way to achieve a reasonable outcome. It is concluded that additional stormwater run-off from the site can be suitably drained and managed with the installation of appropriate drainage infrastructure, and that the works are completed in an acceptable manner which does not unduly disrupt the objector. Neighbourhood Character In relation to neighbourhood character, the site is located within Precinct 3 of the Golden Square residential character policy. The desired future character for the precinct is to maintain the garden setting and the openness of the streetscape.

The proposed subdivision will have limited impact on the existing Maple Street streetscape. Five large trees and numerous native shrubs will remain intact, thus maintaining the current garden setting.

The streetscape along the Curnow Street frontage is likely to change due to the possible removal of a very large tree, a smaller tree and the removal of a large shed and colorbond fence on Lot 2. As this application is for subdivision only, it is difficult to speculate whether prospective developers will construct a dwelling at the front end or rear end of the lot. The large tree is located towards the rear of Lot 2 and will require removal if a dwelling is constructed towards the rear of the site. This raises the issue that the possible removal of this tree would not be in keeping with the residential character policy, in particular maintaining a garden setting. On the other hand, State policy encourages medium density development in residential areas.

On balance the proposed subdivision will be generally in keeping with the character of the area for the following reasons:

The depth of Lot 2 will enable any future dwelling to achieve generous front and side setbacks.

One shed already exists on the proposed Lot 2, so the streetscape already “accepts” a building of some form on this part of the land.

The future construction of a dwelling on Lot 2 will most likely mean that the Colorbond fence along the frontage will be removed, thus enhancing the streetscape of Curnow Street.

The proposed lots sizes of 1,089 and 618 square metres are generally in accordance with the lots in the area.


PAGE 36

Whilst the possible loss of two native trees and native shrubs from the site will undoubtedly alter the streetscape to a certain degree, there is potential for the owner of Lot 2 to construct a dwelling and establish a garden which will respect the existing streetscape in the future.

Overall, the two lot subdivision proposed will respect the objectives of the Golden Square residential character policy and won’t detract from the character of the existing streetscape. Rescode Rescode requirements, including the provision of adequate solar orientation can be satisfied. Access is available to both lots. Even though Lot 2 is constrained by a significant slope and will require a site cut, there is sufficient room to accommodate a building envelope of 10 metres by 15 metres. All services can be connected to the site.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the proposed subdivision of the site complies with the Planning Scheme and thus a permit should be granted.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the planning scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Copy of 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 for a two lot subdivision at 31 Curnow Street, GOLDEN SQUARE 3555 subject to the following conditions: 1. PLANS TO BE ENDORSED

The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application.

2. LAYOUT PLANS

The subdivision, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

3. PROVISION OF SERVICES

The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authorities’ requirements and relevant legislation at the time.


PAGE 37

4. EASEMENTS

All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services and roads must be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.

5. REFERRAL OF PLAN

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

6. 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.

7. STORMWATER DETENTION

Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance, 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. Allowable discharge: Lot 2: Q5 = 4l/s 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 $2,000 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

8. STORMWATER QUALITY

Before the use or development is commenced, the owner or applicant must provide a stormwater treatment system to achieve the Best Practice Environmental Guidelines storm water quality (Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999) 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 treatment of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and/or works, whether or not such new stormwater treatment infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land or its immediate catchment. Such amount is assessed as $920 or such amount applying at the time of payment.


PAGE 38

9. 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.

10. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT

Should the applicant opt to install an on-site stormwater detention system or water quality treatment system then, prior to the issue of statement of compliance, the applicant/owner must enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Such agreement must covenant that: (a) The system shall be designed by a qualified engineer and must be approved by

the responsible authority prior to construction. (b) Each system must be constructed either prior to, or currently with, the

construction of any building on the specified lots. (c) The system must be completed prior to connection to the responsible

authority’s drainage system. (d) The owner will maintain each system and not modify without prior written

approval from the responsible authority. (e) The owner shall allow duly authorised officers of the responsible authority to

inspect the system at mutually agreed times. (f) The owner will pay for all costs associated with the construction and

maintenance of the system.

11. PUBLIC 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 and 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.

12. REMOVAL OF OUTBUILDING Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance, the outbuilding on Lot 2 must be removed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

13. TELECOMMUNICATIONS

(a) The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.


PAGE 39

(b) Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision

under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

14. EXPIRY OF THE PERMIT

The permit will expire if: (a) The plan of subdivision is not certified within two years from the date of this

permit; or (b) The subdivision is not completed within five years from the date of certification

of the plan of subdivision. The responsible authority may extend the time for certification of the plan if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards.

NOTE: 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. (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 condition 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 40

Appendix 1: Proposed Plan of Subdivision

Appendix 2: View from the Maple Street looking over the site


PAGE 41

Appendix 3: View from Curnow Street looking towards Lot 2


PAGE 42

2.4 35 SCULLYS LANE, HEATHCOTE 3523 (TO BE CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION OF 42 ROSS STREET) - AMENDED PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF VEGETATION FROM WITHIN THE ROAD RESERVE


Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: An amendment to a subdivision permit to allow for the removal of native vegetation within the road reserve in front of Lot 2 (35 Scullys Lane).

Application No: AM/782/2012/A

Applicant: Eric Salter Pty Ltd

Land: 35 Scullys Lane HEATHCOTE 3523 (part of subdivision at 42 Ross Street, Heathcote)


Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay 3 Significant Landscape Overlay 1



An on-site meeting between the landowners and COGB staff was held to discuss the proposed removal of trees.

Key considerations: Whether it is appropriate to remove native trees to allow access to Lot 2, when the current proposed access will not result in any removal of trees.

Conclusion: The proposed removal of trees from the road reserve is contrary to the objectives of the Significant Landscape Overlay. The report recommends that an amendment to the permit be refused.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity


Sustainability



PAGE 43

Report


The original application for a three lot subdivision relates to the site at 42 Ross Street, Heathcote. While Lot 1 on the plan of subdivision has frontage to Ross Street, Lot 2 and Lot 3 have frontages to Scully Lane. This amendment to the permit relates only to Lot 2 (35 Scullys Lane). The site (Lot 2) has a 14.38 metre wide frontage to Scullys Lane. The approved access point to the lot is in the eastern corner of the site. There are five medium sized native trees located along the frontage of Lot 2. The road reserve along Scullys Lane is characterised by stands of native vegetation. The site is located near the Heathcote Golf Course, whereby the area reflects a spacious semi-rural bushland character.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Proposal The applicant seeks approval to amend a planning permit to include the removal of native trees along the road reserve to allow new access to the site. It is proposed to move the current access point from the east side of the lot (where there are no trees in the nature strip) to the west side where there will be a need to remove five medium sized native trees.


PAGE 44

Figure 2: Current approved access point Figure 3: Proposed new access

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme The site is in the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and affected by the Significant Landscape Overlay 1 (SLO1). A permit is required to remove native vegetation under the overlay provision and clause 52.17. The following provisions of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the application: State Planning Policy Framework:

Regional development (clause 11.05).

Urban environment (clause 15.01).

Sustainable development (clause 15.02).

Integrated transport (clause 18.01).

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).

Environment (clause 21.08).

Infrastructure (clause 21.09).

Reference documents (clause 21.10). Local Planning Policies:

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).

Heathcote Residential character policy (clause 22.16)


PAGE 45

Other relevant provisions:

Native Vegetation (clause 52.17)

Residential subdivision (clause 56).

Decision guidelines (clause 65).

Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).



Referral Comment

Parks and Natural Reserves Unit

The Parks and Natural Reserves Unit have objected to the amendment to the permit.

Planning Assessment

A planning permit was approved for a three lot subdivision on 12 December 2012. A permit was approved on the basis that access to Lots 2 and 3 could be made without the removal of any vegetation from the road reserve in Scullys Lane. At the time, Council’s Parks and Natural Reserves Unit considered that access to both of these lots was possible as long as the trees on the road reserve in Scullys Lane were not “adversely damaged”. Appropriate conditions and notations were placed on the permit to protect these trees. The planning scheme contains an overlay that relates to Landscape Significance which refers to the bush garden and semi-rural residential areas within the municipal area. The site and road reserve along Scullys Lane is affected by the SLO1. There are a number of objectives which relate to achieving appropriate landscape character for an area. Two of these objectives most pertinent to this application include: (1) to provide for the sensitive siting access to lots, and (2) to minimise threats to the natural environment through the unnecessary removal of native vegetation. The landowner is planning to construct a dwelling on Lot 2 and is proposing to move the approved access point. The landowner is concerned that the approved access to Lot 2 will not be suitable for a car and caravan to enter and exit appropriately. The proposed change to the access to Lot 2 will result in the removal of five native trees. The key issue to this application is whether it is appropriate to remove these trees to allow access to Lot 2, when the current proposed access will not result in any removal of trees. In light of the SLO, the removal of the trees is considered inappropriate for the following reasons:

The trees provide direct connectivity with the bushland which surrounds the golf course to the west and stands of trees which are located along the eastern part of Scullys Lane.


PAGE 46

Schedule 1 refers to the role of the vegetation in contributing to the character and appearance of the area. The trees contribute significantly to the existing streetscape and semi-rural setting of the area.

Four of the trees are in good health. One smaller tree is slightly diseased and may be removed.

There is already an acceptable alternative to removing the trees. There is adequate space for vehicles to enter and exit the site via the existing access point, which will ensure that tree removal is avoided.

COGB’s Parks and Natural Reserves Unit are opposed to the removal of the trees to provide alternative access to Lot 2. The advice provided by this unit state that the trees are remnant and endemic to the area and greatly contribute to the current streetscape. Therefore the original proposed access to Lot 2 should be retained, ensuring that there would be no impact on any vegetation or require any removal of these trees. Conclusion The proposed removal of trees does not meet the requirements of the planning scheme and an amendment to the permit should not be granted.

Options

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

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to grant an amendment to Permit DS/782/2012 which seeks the removal of native vegetation in the road reserve in front of proposed Lot 2 (35 Scullys Lane, Heathcote) for the following reasons: 1. The proposed removal of trees will be detrimental to the bush garden and semi- rural

residential streetscape in Scullys Lane, as identified in the Significant Landscape Overlay that affects the land.


PAGE 47

Attachment 1: Aerial photo showing the extent of trees in the area


PAGE 48

2.5 69 BASSETT DRIVE, STRATHFIELDSAYE 3551 - TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS (STAGED)


Author Lachlan Forsyth Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: Two lot subdivision of land and construction of two dwellings (staged)

Application No: DSD/615/2013

Applicant: Penno Drafting & Design

Land: 69 Bassett Drive, STRATHFIELDSAYE 3551


Overlays: Nil



10 October 2013 - Held between planning officers, owner and applicant to discuss options, given the existence of the restrictive single dwelling covenant on the title.

Key considerations: 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 Council can legally consider the proposal due to a single dwelling covenant existing on the property title.

Conclusion: A covenant exists on title which restricts development of the land to no more than one dwelling. Given this, Council cannot legally grant a permit which contravenes this restrictive covenant, in accordance with Section 61(4) of The Planning and Environment Act 1987.

It is recommended that Council refuse the planning permit based on these grounds.


PAGE 49

Policy Context


Planning for Growth Our quality of life is maintained as our City's population and economy grows.

Productivity A diverse, strong and growing economy supports community resilience.

Sustainability Strengthen the links between Greater Bendigo's past and future by protection and contemporary re-use of our heritage assets.


The subject land, known as Lot 63 on Plan of Subdivision 521581V was created by instrument PS521581V on 11 February 2005. No pre-application meeting was held with the applicant or owner before lodgement of the current application.

Report


The subject site is a generally rectangular shaped parcel of residential land which has a total area of 664m². The site is located at the north eastern corner of Bassett Drive and Gordon Court, to which it has frontages/abuttals of 17.04m and 30.14m respectively. No buildings or vegetation currently exist on the land and there are no formal vehicle access points from either Bassett Drive or Gordon Court. All surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity are residential, with all dwellings constructed in recent years. The majority of dwellings are single storey, constructed of brick and/or render and feature hipped roofs. The two adjoining properties (to the north and east) both contain single storey brick dwellings which are partially constructed to the common boundaries of the subject land. A small amount of vacant lots remain undeveloped in the area. Two vacant lots exist on the immediately opposite (south) side of Gordon Street. The vacant corner allotment (71 Bassett Drive) has recently been approved for two lot subdivision, via Planning Permit DS/295/2013. Council records indicate that this property does not have a single dwelling covenant lodged on its title and as such, can legally be subdivided and developed for two dwellings.


PAGE 50

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector property marked with a star.

Proposal

The applicant seeks approval to subdivide the land into two lots and construct two dwellings. The proposed subdivision would result in the creation of two lots with Lot 1 to be 317m² in size and Lot 2 to be 346m². Both proposed dwellings are single storey, constructed of brick with hipped Colorbond® roofs. Both dwellings are comprised of three bedrooms, garage, meals and living area, kitchen, bathroom, ensuite, alfresco area and laundry.


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

Clause 11.05 - Regional development.


PAGE 51

Clause 15.01 - Urban Environment. Clause 15.02 - Sustainable development. Clause 16.01 - Residential development. Clause 16.02 - Housing form.

Municipal Strategic Statement

Clause 21.01 - Municipal profile. Clause 21.02 - Key issues and influences. Clause 21.03 - Vision - strategic framework. Clause 21.04 - Strategic directions. Clause 21.05 - Settlement. Clause 21.06 - Housing. Clause 21.09 - Infrastructure. Clause 21.10 - Reference documents.

Local Planning Policies

Nil Zone

Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 Zone Overlays

Nil

Other Provisions

Clause 52.06 - Car Parking Clauses 55 & 56 - ResCode. Clause 65 - Decision guidelines.


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

Referral Comment

Traffic & Design No objection subject to conditions

Drainage No response

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

Subject land is subject to a single dwelling covenant.


PAGE 52

Proposed subdivision would result in lot sizes of approximately 300m², which is around half the size of adjoining lots. The objectors believe this is at odds with the neighbourhood character of the area.

The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment

Does the proposal accord with Planning Scheme policy relating to medium density housing? Statewide Policies Clause 11.05 (Regional development) seeks to promote the sustainable growth and development of regional Victoria through a network of settlements identified in the Regional Victoria Settlement Framework plan (which highlights Bendigo as a major regional city). 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. The objective of Clause 15.01 (Urban environment) is 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 which create sustainable neighbourhoods. Clause 15.02 (Sustainable development) seeks to encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions. Clause 16.01 (Residential development) seeks to provide for housing diversity, affordability and to ensure the efficient provision of supporting infrastructure. The state housing policy also states that new housing should have access to services and be planned for long term sustainability, including walkability to activity centres, public transport, schools and open space. Local Policies Clause 21.06 (Housing) identifies the subject land as being within the new development area of Strathfieldsaye. Clause 21.06 promotes Strathfieldsaye as an appropriate development area as it exhibits good proximity to existing arterial routes and centres, lower level constraints due to environmental features, adequate sized land parcels to provide for comprehensive development schemes and potential to utilise available infrastructure. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the State and Local Policy framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme as it represents sustainable development on a well serviced site which is in proximity to a full range of urban services.


PAGE 53

Does the proposal represent an appropriate outcome with reference to Residential Character Policy and ResCode? The subject site is not subject to any specific overlay which seeks to regulate or guide built form (e.g. Neighbourhood Character Overlay). Further to this, no residential character study has been undertaken for the area, meaning there are no identified character objectives or desired future character outcomes for the wider area. Despite this, ResCode requires that any new development respects existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area. The designs, size and built form of both proposed dwellings are acceptable with regards to neighbourhood character. Both dwellings respect the existing character of the area and would be well integrated within the streetscape due to their simple design, single storey height, cladding materials, hipped roof form and setbacks from boundaries. In addition to character, the proposal has also been assessed as being generally in accordance with the majority of ResCode standards and objectives. The proposal represents an acceptable level of amenity provision and protection for the subject and adjoining sites, except for some minor internal overlooking concerns. The proposal is compliant with regards to built form, footprint and setback requirements. Can Council consider the proposal given the existing single dwelling covenant on the property title? Covenant b) of AK231778H lodged on the property title on 12 March 2013 reads as follows: Will not: (b) Erect or cause permit or allow to be erected on the land hereby transferred any building other than one private dwelling house having an area of not less than 105 square metres exclusive of any garage or other usual outbuildings (with or without a garage or other usual outbuildings) of a modern standard and design, and having a roof pitch of less than 15 degrees. Given the existence of this restrictive covenant on the property title, Council does not have authority to approve the proposed two lot subdivision and construction of two dwellings, pursuant to Clause 61(4) of The Planning and Environment Act 1987which reads as follows:

If the grant of a permit would authorise anything which would result in a breach of a registered restrictive covenant, the responsible authority must refuse to grant the permit unless a permit has been issued, or a decision made to grant a permit, to allow the removal or variation of the covenant.

In light of the single dwelling covenants existence, a meeting was held on 10 October 2013 between the planning officer, senior planning officer, applicant and owner to discuss their options. The options put forward by Council (and later confirmed via written correspondence) were as follows:


PAGE 54

1) Seek removal of the covenant through the Planning and Environment Act via a separate planning permit application;

2) Seek removal of the covenant in the Supreme Court under the Property Law Act; 3) Amend the current planning permit application in accordance with Section 50 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 so that the application became a subdivision application only.

The applicant was advised that Council could then issue a permit (assuming the proposal complied with Clause 56) without the permit being in breach of the covenant. It was further advised that a condition of any such subdivision permit would require the restrictive covenant’s removal from the title before statement of compliance could be issued. This would ensure that a) the covenant was not breached by permitting construction of more than one dwelling and b) ensuring the land was not left vacant and undevelopable. This advice is in line with past VCAT findings, such as Wade v Yarra Ranges SC [2005] VCAT 111 (20 January 2005) in which the tribunal considered that the requirement to consider the possible future development of the land (Clause 65.02 of the scheme) meant that a permit condition should be imposed preventing the issue of a statement of compliance for the subdivision until the restrictive covenant is varied or removed to allow a dwelling to be constructed on each of the lots.

4) Amend the current permit application in accordance with Section 50 of the Planning

and Environment Act 1987 to include the removal of the covenant. Following this meeting the applicant/owner has opted to make no change to the application. As such, the Responsible Authority has no other option than to refuse the permit. Residents’ Objections

Subject land is subject to a single dwelling covenant.

As discussed above, Council does not have authority to approve the proposal and would be acting ultra vires if it attempted to do so.

Proposed subdivision would result in lot sizes of approximately 300m², which is around half the size of adjoining lots. The objectors believe this is at odds with the neighbourhood character of the area.

There are examples of approximate 300m² lots in the immediate area. The nearest being the recently subdivided allotment to the immediate south of the subject land (71 Bassett Drive).

There are no statutory lot size restrictions affecting the land and the design response is respectful of the existing character of the area.


PAGE 55

Conclusion

A restrictive covenant exists on title which restricts development of the land to no more than one dwelling. Given this, Council cannot legally grant a permit to construct two dwellings and subdivide the land into two lots, in accordance with Section 61(4) of The Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the planning scheme, must resolve to refuse to grant a permit in accordance with Section 61(4) of The Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Attachments

Objection

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to Refuse to Grant a Permit for Two lot subdivision of land and construction of two dwellings at 69 Bassett Drive, STRATHFIELDSAYE 3551 on the following grounds: 1. A restrictive covenant exists on property title which restricts development of the

land to no more than one dwelling. Given this, Council must refuse to grant a permit to construct two dwellings and subdivide the land into two lots, in accordance with Section 61(4) of The Planning and Environment Act 1987.


PAGE 56

2.6 138 CROOK STREET, STRATHDALE 3550 - USE OF LAND FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE & WAIVER OF CAR PARKING


Author Bryce Kilian, Statutory Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: Use of land for a childcare centre & waiver of car parking Application No: DU/822/2013 Applicant: P M Davies Land: 138 Crook Street, STRATHDALE 3550 Zoning: Residential 1 Zone Overlays: N/A No. of objections: 1 Consultation meeting held:

No formal consultation meeting was held

Key considerations: Whether the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Whether the use is appropriate for the site. Whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on traffic and parking in the area.

Conclusion: This report recommends that the City of Greater Bendigo Council approves the application.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity


Sustainability



PAGE 57


The use has been operational on the site over the past 18 -24 months with the only complaints received coming from the objector to this application. The applicant has advised the City that the use is not operational at the moment whilst this application is being processed. The planning scheme allows up to 5 children to be cared for (whom do not permanently reside at the property) in a residential zone without planning approval as such, it is not known if the use previously in operation would have been contravening the planning scheme or not.

Report


The subject site is rectangular in shape measuring approximately 740 square metres in size and slopes from the back of the block to Crook Street by 2 metres. The street frontage to Crook Street is approximately 19.2 metres. An existing brick dwelling is located centrally on the site along with an existing garage and carport. The garage has been converted (with Building Approval) for the use. Surrounding properties to the north, west and south are all residential. Land to the east is a park reserve and also contains a Council run childcare centre. Crook Street is a wide, Council managed road with numerous marked parking spaces within the road reserve.

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


PAGE 58

Proposal

The proposal is for a ‘home based’ childcare centre. The applicants currently live at the dwelling and propose to continue to live there whilst running the childcare centre. The proposal will cater for a maximum of 15 children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years at any given time. The proposed hours of operation are from 8am to 5:30 pm Monday to Thursday. Children are outside for play times between the hours of 10am to 11am and 3:30pm to 5pm. It is proposed to waive the car parking requirements which under the planning scheme are 0.22 spaces per child to be accommodated. In this case, the applicant would be required to provide 3 spaces however due to the constraints on the site and area proposed for the use no visitor parking can be provided for the use.

Figure 2: Existing/proposed floor plan.


PAGE 59

Figure 3: Existing/proposed site plan.


The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:

32.01 Residential 1 Zone

52.06 Car Parking



Referral Comment

Environmental Health No objection subject to notations

Public Notification The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers.


PAGE 60

As a result of advertising, one objection was received, with the grounds of objection being:

Noise (vehicular and human dropping children off and noise from the children themselves playing)

Vehicle parking issues at pick up and drop off

Increased vehicle traffic in Crook Street

No consultation meeting was held owing to the specific circumstances between the applicant and the objector however, numerous conversations have been had with the applicant and objector by the assessing officer. No mutually agreeable outcome could be reached. The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment

Is the use appropriate for a residential area? The planning scheme does not provide much guidance for an application of this nature aside from stating that up to five children can be cared for in a residential property without planning approval. As the proposal is for up to 15 children the need for a permit arises. The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is to allow for appropriate residential developments however, the purpose of the zone goes on to state that allowance can be made for other, non-residential uses, in appropriate locations to serve local community needs. Childcare centres have been identified by the community and Council as being of high significance and in demand. There are a number of ‘home based’ childcare centres operating currently within the municipality. This site is appropriate for the proposed use as it is supported in the residential zone and in this location, with appropriate site management the use will not impact adversely on the surrounding properties. Will the proposal impact on the amenity of the locality through noise emission? The objector’s main noise complaints, as understood through the written submission and verbal conversations with the assessing officer relate primarily to the children playing in the carport with loud toys and impacts to the Colorbond boundary fencing. The applicants for the permit are aware of this concern and have plans afoot to undertake significant landscaping to the rear yard of the site. This will create appropriate play spaces for the children (currently utilized) to not only create better spaces for the children but alleviate the noise concerns of the objector. Notwithstanding, there will be circumstances where the children will play under the carport such as during wet or very cold weather.


PAGE 61

This site has been operational for the past 18 to 24 months with the only complaints being received from the objector to this application. If there was significant impact on the surrounding locality through noise emissions, it would be reasonable to expect that other neighbours (whom all received direct mail notification of the proposal) would have objected to the proposal. Is vehicle parking in this section of Crook Street an issue and will this proposal increase traffic in the street? Crook Street is a large Council managed road. There is a large amount of marked, on street car parking spaces in this locality. Crook Street has a capacity based on its construction and width of up to 6000 vehicle per day. The proposed use will generate no more than 15 additional vehicle movements in both the morning and afternoon. Children are dropped off and collected by parents immediately prior to, during and immediately after the operating hours. The applicant informs the assessing officer that these drop offs and pickups are very brief, lasting only a matter of minutes (unless the parent has specific requests of the operator). The planning scheme requires that car parking be provided on site at a rate of 0.22 spaces per child. As the proposal is for a maximum of 15 children at any time, the amount of spaces required on site is 3. The site is not capable of containing the 3 parking spaces as there is only a single width driveway for the property which is utilized for the residential component of the block. The waiver of car parking is appropriate owing to the small size of the proposed use (maximum 15 children), the width of the road and the line marked car parking spaces within the road as well as the infrequent nature of the use (pick up and drop off over short periods of time). There will be increased traffic within the street as a result of this proposal however, owing to the capacity and size of the road and when viewed in the context of the maximum child numbers proposed of 15, there will be minimal impact caused.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the application is recommended for approval on the basis that it represents an acceptable planning outcome with regard to an identified community need and the Residential 1 Zone. It is considered that the proposal will not cause unreasonable and/or significant detriment to the established residential values of the area. It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to conditions.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the planning scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.


PAGE 62

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 for the use of land for a child care centre at 138 Crook Street, STRATHDALE 3550 subject to the following conditions: 1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION

The layout of the uses on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

2. NOISE MINIMISATION A barrier or similar structure must be erected along the northern boundary fence line under the carport to minimize noise caused by impacting the fence owing to children playing under the carport.

3. HOURS OF OPERATION Except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, the use permitted by this permit must operate only between the following times:

Monday to Thursday7:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m.

4. USE BY SPECIFIC PERSON This permit authorises the use of the subject land only for that period during which Paige Davies is the operator under this permit.

5. NUMBER OF CHILDREN Except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, the number of children permissible on site (that do not permanently reside at the property) must not exceed 15.

Liveability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2013

PAGE 63

3. LIVEABILITY

3.1 OUTDOOR DINING AND STREET TRADING CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW


Author Susannah Milne, Manager Environmental Health & Local Laws Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Advise Council of the recommended changes to the Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice resulting from the review and consultation process.

2. Recommend that the revised Code be adopted as specified in Section 112 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Liveability

Our communities have active and vibrant places in which to meet.

Productivity

A diverse, strong and growing economy supports community resilience. 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, and the review of the Code of Practice needs to be considered within this context. Legislative Context

Local Government Act 1989

Section 111. Power to make local laws

Section 112. Incorporation by reference


PAGE 64


The current Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice (the Code) was developed in 2008 as a part of the review of the Municipal Places Local Law No. 5. The Code has legal weight under the Local Law as an incorporated document. As an incorporated document, the Code can be amended and adopted through Council. The process is then finalised by the printing of a public notice in the local paper and the Government Gazette, advising that the amended Code has been adopted. The current Code, sought to clearly articulate the application, design and decision making process, as well as ongoing management and maintenance expectations that aimed to create accessible and active street frontages. Over recent years we have seen a significant increase in the amount of outdoor dining permits in the CBD alone. In 2001 we had 21 permits; currently we have 69 permits for premises that enliven our streets. Like any policy document, periodic review and amendment is necessary to ensure that it remains current and responsive to emerging issues. Some of the issues that have been raised in recent times include weather protection treatments, alternative barrier design and different footpath display configurations. As a result these issues have been addressed as part of the review. The Code has been reviewed internally by a working party comprising of the Manager Environmental Health & Local Laws, Urban Design Advisor and Place Manager. The review went through the following stages: 1. Document review 2. Benchmarking 3. Peer review 4. Site visits and evaluations of various Melbourne Councils 5. Internal consultation with planning, heritage, strategy, design and engineering 6. External consultation with businesses and others who use the City streets and public

space. The findings and recommendations are detailed in the body of the report.

Report

1.0 Document Review It was identified that the current Code is still suitable and applicable. It has successfully facilitated activation of Bendigo and surrounds streetscapes whilst maintaining the standard for planning, urban design and access elements. The Code could be improved by amending it to respond to emerging trends and issues by reviewing the following areas:-

The Code could be supported by providing a condensed document that guides applicants through the design and application process. As a result, a simplified application form and supporting guideline explanation has been developed.


PAGE 65

The Code needs to consider some new design treatments for furniture and fittings (including barriers) to give more alternative and attractive design options, as more options are available on the market.

The team has also identified the following points which were considered as a part of the review and conducted consultation with internal and external stakeholders on the issues:-

Barriers in the Mall

Umbrellas

Blinds/weather treatments

Barriers

Display of goods

Advertising

Furniture supply – opportunities to improve standards and facilitated

Use of flags/advertising

Busking Benchmarking The Code document was bench-marked against some similar Victorian Local Government authorities as well as the City of Adelaide and City of Darwin. It was found that our Code was similar in its objectives and content as other policy documents from these Local Governments. All documents contained design standards to promote balanced use of public space with clear requirements about public access. Clearly it is well recognised that shared use of the footpath adds colour, vibrancy and activity to the streets frontages and public places. There is a clear aim to promote the mutual benefit to traders and the community and to facilitate these activities in a safe and responsible manner. Peer Review The City of Melbourne conducted a peer review of our Code and provided the following comments:-

The linkage between the City’s strategic objectives, plans, strategies and the Code is of paramount importance and sits well within the document.

Enclosing a Public Place – stronger and earlier articulation why it is inappropriate to enclose a public place. The City of Melbourne commented that they are in the process of ensuring the removal of blinds, awnings and structures that have been put in place across the City that enclose public places without permission.

Fixed furniture/glass screens only considered on a case by case basis – this approach is supported as generally it is not a desired outcome in the public realm. This process allows you to consult with external and internal agencies to either support or reject the proposal on merit.

A frame signage – highlighted that we might like to consider that signage should be included within the Outdoor dining area to reduce the footprint in the public space. Acts as a disincentive to place too many signs in a public place.


PAGE 66

Display of Goods – City of Melbourne have banned this except in the Victorian Market precinct, to reduce the negative impact on the streetscape, particularly with reference to quality.

Busking – suggested that greater control and parameters be put in place to regulate busking as it is a particular issue in Melbourne.

Outdoor dining permits in a residential areas – is well addressed to prevent noise and amenity impacts on residents.

Site visits and evaluation The following site visits to a variety of locations and precinct configurations were made: - Keilor Road, Niddrie Puckle Street & surrounds, Moonee Ponds Lygon Street, Carlton Smith Street, Collingwood Gertrude Street, Fitzroy Brunswick Street, Fitzroy Queens Parade, Clifton Hill Chapel Street, South Yarra Acland Street, St Kilda Fitzroy Street, St Kilda Cecil Street, South Melbourne Coventry Street, South Melbourne Market Street, South Melbourne Clarendon Street, South Melbourne Docklands Swanston Street, Melbourne Manchester Lane, Melbourne Degraves Street, Melbourne Centre Place, Melbourne Various laneways, Melbourne The following observations and evaluations were made based on site inspections:-

The quality of presentation in Bendigo is high; our businesses are doing it well and the structured application, guidelines and assistance result in a look that does not negatively impact our streetscapes.

The quality of outdoor dining presentation corresponds with the quality of the surrounding built environment.

Clear, structured and applied controls on activation of public space results in good outcomes for both the public and business.

Reactive application of standards is difficult and costly, for example the City of Melbourne is retrospectively enforcing the removal of illegally installed plastic blinds in premier streets such as Lygon Street.

The use of low barriers delineates the dining area but promotes the visual cues associated with active and vibrant street frontages.

Low barriers allow for more variety in barrier design.

Barriers should not be permanent.

Any design treatment such as cladding, must be externally facing to the street.

Any design treatment of barriers must be constructed with commercial materials to ensure quality, durability and high standard.

Different tables and chairs areas act as a point of difference, adding variety, which should be encouraged.

Outdoor dining works better under verandahs, particularly those with posts, offering quality weather protection and a sense of protection from vehicles.

A variety of trading/options activates streets, suggesting flexibility and innovation should be encouraged.

Small ‘pop-up’ kiosks adds variety and activation.

Overly wide footpaths may encourage privatisation by stealth.


PAGE 67

Barriers are not necessary to protect patrons from traffic.

Planters can be a maintenance liability.

Physical markers in pavements to delineate trading areas are very useful and guide staff who often set up footpath trading area, (Reduces the need for Council staff to monitor, it is self-monitoring).

Awnings must not slope down to avoid enclosure of public spaces. A number of retractable awnings were observed to be too low.

Drop down plastic blinds are not a quality treatment and were observed to deteriorate and show signs of wear.

Any treatment such as blinds needs to be actively managed, i.e. only used when required.

Traders need to pack up after service.

Advertising on barriers should be limited to business identification only.


Prior to the review formally commencing there had been discussion regarding the need to review the Code to respond to growth and balancing the business needs with public space usage. One business sought to enclose the outdoor dining facility outside their premise, to provide better amenity to patrons as well as provide an extension to their seating arrangements all year round. Furthermore the existing Code in setting a prescribed approach to outdoor dining and street trading could be restrictive to innovation and emerging trends. It was evident that the Code needed to be reviewed to be current and responsive to consumer and business needs. There has been considerable discussion on aspects of the Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code. Engagement of key stakeholders utilised a multitude of communication mediums Response from the patrons of the affected business and the general public has been high. As a result the commitment to review the Code within a short timeframe by the City was made. The key stakeholders identified for consultation purposes over the content of the Code were:

The community members who use the footpath and roads.

Patrons who utilise the businesses street dining and trading areas.

Businesses who have Local Law permits for street dining and trading who are directly affected by the Code.

Avenues that were used to engage with the identified stakeholders were:

Engagement of community members and patrons was conducted through the ‘Have your say’ section on the website, Facebook and Twitter.

Businesses who hold Local Law permits for street trading and dining, were e-mailed directly or sent in the mail a project bulletin and survey asking for their thoughts and response to identified issues.

Businesses were also offered the opportunity to arrange individual meetings with the project team to discuss the review.

Media coverage was also received from the print media and radio.

Further consultation with Mall Food traders and a View Street trader to discuss barriers in the mall and weather treatments.

The results of the consultation are summarised below, together with officer recommendation.


PAGE 68

1.0 WEATHER TREATMENT

BACKGROUND Many businesses advise that outside dining in front of their premises creates an attractive atmosphere and encourages people to come into their business. This street activation has mutual benefit for the City and Community, by creating vibrant and active street frontages. Some businesses and patrons have suggested that they would like protection from the elements particularly during cooler months and one way to do this is through drop down awnings / blinds. Enclosing outdoor dining areas on public land, in not considered an acceptable urban design treatment due to the privatisation of space and exclusion of the general public from the area.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATION:-

There were mixed views on the provision of weather treatments for outdoor dining.

One Business strongly supported the introduction of weather treatments so that they could significantly enclose the footpath area outside their premises. They indicated that by enclosing the area with drop down blinds and permanent barriers they could provide outdoor dining but in comfortable conditions with protection from wind, rain and with heating.

Half of the respondents thought that some kind of weather treatment would be appropriate, but did not have any real examples on how to do this.

Interestingly, a number of responses indicated that plastic blinds can become worn and tired and would need to be managed and replaced regularly.

A number of respondents advised blinds shouldn’t be allowed, “al fresco dining is not as popular in colder weather – accept it and don’t waste money trying to cater for it”.

A comprehensive submission articulated that to allow weather treatments effectively commercialises and privatises public space and should not occur.

Of those who were in favour of weather treatments, the majority expressed concern over the quality and look of the treatment. They indicated that they expected the CoGB to set clear requirements and monitoring. Other comments indicated that an outdoor dining area was just that, and during inclement weather not an attractive place for them to use.

Advice from Heritage Advisor – is that “Generally, attaching external blinds and awnings to heritage buildings may not be appropriate, but can sometimes be acceptable if high quality; opaque, canvas-like material is used and carefully designed. A good example is the incorporation of long, almost vertical blinds into the arched openings of the arcade around the GPO in Melbourne". Also, “If the building is individually significant, such as on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) or covered by an individual heritage overlay, each proposal would really need to be considered on a case by case basis. For places on the VHR a heritage permit or permit exemption would be required. Any physical damage caused by the attachment or fixing to the heritage building would also


PAGE 69

need to be considered and in some cases nothing should be fixed to the building. If there is an existing canopy or verandah, it may be appropriate to have some vertical retractable weather protection on the street side in the form of a high quality opaque canvas-like material. Clear plastic or vinyl is inappropriate”.

City of Melbourne advise that there is no tolerance for the use of ‘drop down’ plastic blinds as weather treatments. They are illegal and are working to have them removed.

Officer Recommendation:- Option 1 It is the strong recommendation from COGB staff that the Code does not permit the installation of blinds or weather treatments in outdoor dining areas. In summary enclosing public spaces giving the appearance of exclusive use by a business has a negative impact in the following ways:-

Reduces visible and active street frontages, negating the ‘active frontages’ sought in the CBD Plan.

Decreases passive surveillance of public spaces, passive surveillance can act as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour and crime.

Reduces the interaction between the patrons and general public.

Community space and benefit is eroded by commercial and economic benefit to the business using the public space.

The nature of public space offers a person the right to choose whether to engage with the space or not. This cannot happen when the public space looks or feels as though it is appropriated exclusively for commercial interests.

The path of travel for street users is compromised or redirected away from the perceived premise space.

Creating an imprint on our City’s streetscapes. Bendigo is acclaimed as a premier town and memorable place to ‘stroll the streets’, with wide streets combining new with old.

There has been significant private and public investment in the City for our community; blocking the views of our buildings and streets diminishes this experience for people on the street. The Code allows for a number of treatment options for traders to make the area more comfortable such as barriers, umbrellas and awnings, but there will be times when patrons will choose not to use this space because of inclement weather. Option 2 That approved weather treatments that are temporary may be permitted on a case-by case basis where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal will increase activity in the street, is of high quality and will be properly managed

To avoid the enclosure or privatisation of a public place, if weather treatments were approved on a case-by–case basis, then they would need to be carefully and sympathetically designed to the streetscape and managed accordingly.


PAGE 70

The CoGB would set a high quality design standard that would require premise owners and their staff to actively manage the installation. I.e. lower/raise each day.

The weather treatment options would be of a material and quality specified by the City’s Heritage, Planning and Urban Design team. This is to control the look and impact of treatments on our City’s streetscapes.

Note: - In some instances dependant on planning zones and overlays a planning permit approval may be required. The high quality design and construction required will have some bearing on the affordability of this option for businesses. In prescribing the quality and active management, it would avoid potential conflict and minimise resources required to intervene, however experience shows that staff will still be required to follow up non-compliance and take action on occasion.

2.0 BARRIERS IN THE MALL

BACKGROUND: The current approach for the Hargreaves Mall is that no outdoor dining barriers are allowed, as there is no need to provide separation and protection from vehicles, and it is preferable to ensure the space remains open and easily accessible for pedestrians.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATION:-

Opinions between food traders in the mall were mixed, 3 out of 5 wanted barriers whilst 1 did not and another undecided.

Some food traders felt that the cost of the installation should be met by the City, however one would be willing to contribute.

One trader advised that they could get equipment from suppliers, however this is not permitted.

One trader strongly supported the installation of permanent barriers; however this would not be supported in a public space that is regularly used for alternative activity. Installation of permanent barriers, excludes space from public use and access such as Easter and Makers Market.

One trader expressed the view that barriers would deter antisocial behaviour and help define the public space.

Traders wished to use the barriers for advertisement and identification – business can detail business name and logo on barriers under restricted advertising requirements detailed in the code.

One trader advised that the no barriers allowed their patrons to move seating in order to chase the sun or shade, for this reason they did not support barriers.

One trader said the barriers would stop informal spread and prevent business from encroaching on the required 3 metre pedestrian access from the building line.


PAGE 71

No business in the Mall made a submission on this, however patron response was mixed.

The minority of the respondents advised that they would like to see the reintroduction of barriers in the Mall. The reasons ranged from controlling the spread of chairs/tables, separating outdoor dining areas/users from pedestrians, would be neater and tidier, considered open and unprotected. It could also add colour and provide guidance for visually impaired patrons.

Majority responded no, that it is an open space to be shared by all, but acknowledged businesses need to do more to manage/control their allocated space.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PRESENTATION AND ASSETTS The Hargreaves Mall is a public space that is designed around the principles of accessibility to promote safety and facilitate community interaction. Designed as the key public open space within the CBD, the space offers unimpeded accessibility and movement through an area that is free from vehicles. Fixed barriers are not allowed in the Hargreaves Mall for the reasons listed below:

An inconsistent application of outdoor dining barriers would lead to a poor visual outcome that could compromise the vista of what is currently a simple, legible urban space.

There is currently no formal demarcation of outdoor dining areas within the Hargreaves Mall.

Placing barriers to isolate dining that incorporate branding would privatise this public space. This could have the unintended consequence of deterring potential customers who may feel excluded from the outdoor dining spaces.

The need to allow for clearances around furniture would reduce the total area available within the allocated outdoor dining areas and could result in traders not being able to accommodate the same amount of patrons.

Outdoor dining barriers are currently prohibited from the Mall to create pedestrian interaction and facilitate permeability of movement.

In locations outside of the Hargreaves Mall, outdoor dining barriers provide a safety buffer between diners and vehicular traffic. Vehicles are prohibited from the Mall alleviating the need for this purpose.

The management of outdoor dining areas is the responsibility of the trader. The installation of barriers alone will not necessarily deter antisocial behaviour. Prior to the Mall redevelopment there was an incident involving a removable barrier being used as a weapon.

Officer Recommendations:- Option 1: That consistent with established design principles of the Mall that the Code remains unchanged and that no barriers/screens be used within the Mall. In summary barriers are not supported in the Mall because:-


PAGE 72

There is no requirement to provide separation and protection from vehicles.

Design principles surrounding clear, open and shared public space would be compromised.

Permanent barrier installation if permitted could significantly reduce the area for the use of events.

The open space, feel and design encourages many different paths of travel.

Open barrier free dining areas encourage access for all particularly those who require mobility assistance.

Physical barriers do not prevent antisocial behaviour; this is addressed through management of the area by the responsible business.

The introduction of barriers for advertising purposed is not an appropriate reason to allow barrier installation.

Option 2: That removable barriers be allowed in Hargreaves Mall on a case by case basis subject to the standard approvals process. As with all other places within Greater Bendigo, the total costs of all outdoor dining barriers, their installation and any upgrades to footpaths is at the cost of the applicant.

3.0 Barrier Height

BACKGROUND Currently the maximum height of outdoor dining barriers is 900mm to provide a level of enclosure and separation from adjoining businesses and traffic while still maintaining an open and safe feeling for pedestrians. Feedback was sought regarding the height.

Over half the respondents felt that the current height of barriers was appropriate. It offers protection and separation for patrons, as well as the visual cues of shared space, activity and interests.

Some respondents feel that the design and height should be sympathetic to the other features of the streetscape.

Some patrons responded that the height should be raised to offer better amenity options for patrons using the outdoor space – i.e. reduce street and pedestrian noise impacts, offer weather protection and reduce fumes.

One respondent suggested lowering the barriers.

One business advised that the height works well at their premise which fronts a busy street, it provides a level of protection whilst openness to the streetscape. The visual activity and use of this space makes it attractive to patrons and customers; “it’s your best form of advertising”.

Another business openly criticised the varying heights across the municipality, but was siting examples where the City had installed pedestrian treatments in strategic locations, which then doubled as barriers for outdoor dining areas.

Officer Recommendation:- That barrier height remain at a standard 900mm This will allow the objectives of the Code to be achieved and encourage shared use between public and private interests. Barriers offer protection and delineation of footpath use. The openness allows for positive contribution to street activity and


PAGE 73

vibrancy and avoids the privatisation of the public asset for purely business interests.

4.0 Extending the use of traffic and amenity treatments

BACKGROUND Along High Street several restaurants have higher (1500mm) clear glass screens to provide better noise and wind protection from passing traffic. Feedback was sought on whether or not this should this be extended to other busy streets? If so, which ones?

Respondents overwhelmingly thought that it was appropriate to have this treatment in place to address amenity and safety issues along high traffic flow areas.

Consideration should be given to extending this further to other main arterials; many respondents suggested this should be extended to Mitchell and Williamson Streets. Whilst three thought this appropriate for all CBD businesses, others thought that if the street was ‘busy’ this should be an option.

One respondent felt that this would be an appropriate treatment for Bull Street.

Some respondents felt that glass screens should not be introduced into the CBD or Code.

The businesses who responded felt that the use of glass screens currently allowed within the Code was appropriate.

Officer Recommendation: - Where there are traffic, safety and external amenity impacts it is appropriate that treatments such as glass screens that are higher than the standard 900mm be permitted on a case by case basis in appropriate locations such as on main arterial roads like High Street.

5.0 Barrier design, material and construction

BACKGROUND The standard material for barriers is canvas, partly because they are light weight and are easy for staff to put out and bring in, however there are also other materials in use such as glass and sheet metal that have been used. Do you think the materials for barriers should be controlled, or should it be based on the quality of presentation and/or other issues (such as height)?

The majority of respondents thought that the Code needs to be more flexible in material and presentation of barriers construction.

However there was a strong support for control to ensure quality and presentation. COGB would need to have criteria and context around alternative options to ensure quality, safety and maintenance.

Advertising on barriers was not supported.

One business thought the current Code, that restricts material was ok, it allowed consistency across the CBD. “If anyone could apply for anything, decisions would be based on personal preferences and create unnecessary


PAGE 74

debates around what is good and bad”.

Another business thought that innovation and experience beyond the restaurant walls could add to the patron experience. They acknowledged their attempt to replicate this, but were not ‘engineers, architects or building designers’.

Officer Recommendation: - Introduce controlled flexibility into the design, materials and construction of barriers through an internal approval process. We recommend the standard for barriers be set at 900mm high and constructed of canvas inserts over a steel frame. However provided that the height remains standard, there is scope for differing construction and materials to be used. Application and design detail will be required to be submitted for assessment; no retrospective approval will be given. The COGB has the technical skill and expertise – architect, urban design, heritage, traffic and planning; to assess, make recommendation and approve alternative design options. This design skill set can be provided to business owners when working through design proposals, which require some modification.

6.0 Barrier placement

BACKGROUND Barriers that have a frame are required to have the frame on the inside of the cladding and present the finished side to the street. Do you support this notion? Why?

The majority of respondents supported this as it was important that the presentation was outwards to the street and general public.

The looks and design would be cleaner but there is no reason that it could not be replicated on both sides.

A few respondents thought that this was not important or could be dependent on design and construction.

Business responded that the view to the street was most important.

Officer Recommendation: - Presentation and finish must be to the streetscape, however if the design is to be replicated on the inward facing of screen, this is permitted too.

7.0 AWNINGS

BACKGROUND Retractable awnings are a relatively new and stylish way of providing protection for customers when a building doesn’t have a verandah. The Code suggests that the height of the bottom of the awning from the footpath should be between 2.8m - 3.8m


PAGE 75

to ensure that the footpath remains open and transparent and 1m from the kerb to avoid damage from trucks and vans. Are these distances OK?

Majority of respondents believe that the current proposal is ok.

A few suggested that flexibility should be incorporated.

Our Transportation Engineer advised that we need to ensure that there is clearance for vehicles such as trucks and also signage, but suggested there could be some flexibility. He suggested that we amend the awning set back from the kerb to be 800mm which is consistent with all other similar setback distances.

Officer recommendation: - That the Code be amended to reflect that awnings must be setback a minimum 800mm from the kerb. The height of the awning is important to maintain at a reasonable height for vehicle safety issues but also to ensure the ‘open feel’ of the space. The Code should also encourage consideration of restoration or installation of a verandah, where planning controls allow.

8.0 GOODS FOR DISPLAY/SALE ON FOOTPATH

BACKGROUND Footpath trading has long been a great way to display goods for sale and attract customers to the business. We asked should there be a limit on the amount of footpath space that trading tables/displays take up, or on the number of tables/displays? If so, what?

Responses to this question were mixed, but generally appears to be supportive of the option of goods for display, as long as clear paths of travel are maintained.

Some respondents suggested unlimited amount of goods and display, whilst others suggested controls and limits, such as numbers, percentage of footpath or window width.

Respondents also stressed the need to consider parking and pedestrian access.

In some cases, goods on display can act as a barrier between traffic and pedestrians, and where appropriate these delineations should be encouraged – Bendigo Whole Foods is a good example of this.

Officer Recommendations: - Limit the number of displays to address pedestrian and traffic issues, whilst building in some flexibility for alternatives to be considered on merit.


PAGE 76

9. Flexibility in displays of goods

BACKGROUND Innovative footpath trading displays create a point of difference for a business. We sought feedback on ways that we could encourage innovation and variation

A variety of responses came up with a number of suggestions that encourage flexibility, colour and vibrancy.

Encourage businesses to utilise the space and recognise the good examples.

Don’t stifle creativity with rules or regulations, encourage market days and sidewalk sales periodically.

Same rules should be applied – height, with no individual circumstance.

Avoid Streetscapes…use window displays.

Go back to using the building line for displays. Note: - The Discrimination and Disability Act requires a minimum set back from building line to enable a clear path of travel.

Officer Recommendation: - Include flexibility in footpath trading displays to encourage creativity & recognise those who do it well.

10. Banner Flags – raised internally

BACKGROUND

This is an emerging issue that needs consideration.

Through a permit process control needs to be applied on the number of flags permitted, design, location and size of the flags, so that they do not cause safety and amenity issues.

Some locations will not be suitable due to heritage and signage controls.

Need to ensure proposal creates interest and vibrancy but not a traffic or pedestrian hazard.

Officer Recommendation: - Permit the use of banner flags, but restrict height, design and placement of flags to avoid traffic and amenity issues.

11. Advertising on Umbrellas - raised internally

BACKGROUND

Third party advertising must be limited; it detracts from the quality and look of the outdoor dining area.

Business advertising on barriers and screen at current levels is appropriate.

Minimal advertising on umbrellas would be ok if the design and look was unobtrusive i.e. solid colour with minimal text.

Officer Recommendation: - Permit third party advertising on umbrellas in a controlled manner, that sets minimal sizing, logo and colour.


PAGE 77

12. Busking - raised internally

BACKGROUND

Need to simplify application process to encourage more to activate public space.

Increase activity time as current time is a little restrictive.

Amplification should be avoided, but acknowledged this does occur.

Insurance – COGB policy will cover some existing activity.

Permit process – improve record keeping, but still need to track due to insurance issues.

Officer Recommendation: - That the Code be amended to reflect the feedback and suggestions made above.

Priority/Importance: Medium priority

Conclusion

Summary of Key Changes After consideration of the document review, bench marking, site visits and consultation process, the following outcomes have been determined and where required, changes have been made to Code. A summary of the issues and recommendations are provided in the table below.

Issue Recommendation

Weather Treatment It is the strong recommendation from COGB staff that the Code does not permit the installation of blinds or weather treatments in outdoor dining areas.

Barriers in the Mall No barriers in the Mall permitted.

Barrier design and construction

That flexibility be introduced into the Code that allows alternative design, material and construction of barriers. Applications will be assessed on a case by case basis by internal design staff. (Note: Canvas barriers will remain preferred design standard, where no alternative design proposed.)

Barriers design Any design treatment must face the street.

Awnings Where appropriate the installation or reinstatement of verandahs will be encouraged. Awnings will be required to be set back 800mm from the kerb and have a height clearance of 2.8m at its lowest point.


PAGE 78

Issue Recommendation

Goods for Display/Sale That the number of displays or goods offered for display be limited to 2 stands/items per application. Where innovation, creativity and positive community benefit can be demonstrated alternative design options will be assessed on a case by case basis.

Setbacks from kerbs Minor amendments to ensure consistency with road design standards and reinforce outdoor dining areas does not interfere with signage/safety aspects for road network users.

Banners – flag & feather

In response to emerging use that through a permit process control be placed on the numbers and size of banners, their location and design to ensure safety and design standards

Advertising on Umbrellas

Change code to permit third party advertising on umbrellas, provided that colour is solid and logo/text is 10% of available area.

Busking Requirements have been amended and simplified to encourage activation though busking.

Guidelines Production of a reference document that guides applicants

Amend application forms

Simplify and streamline form.


The review of the Code has been conducted internally by staff. The final format and proofing of the document has been completed by external advertising agency for approximately $2,500. Minor amendments can be made at no cost; major changes will involve further costs. There will be costs associated with the public notice process in the Government Gazette of approximately $250. With the implementation of the new Code there will be additional requirements on staff to provide further advice and assistance to applicants should they choose to submit alternative design options for their footpath trading fixtures. There could also be additional monitoring and compliance activity associated with the Code that may impact on current resourcing. The effects on resources and the need for additional resources will not be known until such a time the Code comes into effect. Council should note that if additional resources to implement, monitor or ensure compliance is required, the Environmental Health & Local Laws Unit will make a request for additional resources through the budget process.


PAGE 79

Attachments

Revised Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to:- 1. Adopt the recommended changes to the Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of

Practice:

a) The no weather treatments be permitted that encloses outdoor dining area. b) That no barriers be permitted in the Hargreaves Mall c) That flexibility be introduced into the Code that allows alternative design, material

and construction of barriers. d) Awnings must be set back a minimum of 800mm from the kerb and have a

clearance of 2.8metres, to facilitate clear lines of sight and set back from vehicle traffic.

e) That alternative design which are creative and innovative be permitted to goods offer for sale or display.

f) That all required setbacks for street trading and dining infrastructure from the kerb be made consistent within the Code.

g) That the use of flag and feather banners be allowed and managed through a permit process within the Code.

h) That third party advertising be permitted on umbrellas, provided that the colour is solid and logo/text is restricted to 10% of the available area.

i) Conditions surrounding busking have been simplified to encourage street activation.

j) That the Code be supported with a simplified application form which and guidelines for applicants.

2. Adopt the amended Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice.

3. In accordance with Section 112. Subsection (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, that Council causes notice to be published in the Government Gazette of the amended Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice


PAGE 80

3.2 RESPONSE TO PETITION: LAKE TOM THUMB


Author Orrin Hogan, Acting Manager Parks and Natural Reserves Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of the report is to respond to the petitions presented to Council on 2 October, 23 October and 13 November 2013 from Eaglehawk residents regarding the bird population at Lake Tom Thumb.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference:

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013–2017:

Theme: 2 Liveability

Strategic Objective: 2.3 Open space and recreation facilities are well designed, extensively used and well maintained.

Theme: 5 Good Governance and Decision Making

Strategic Objective: 5.1 Council demonstrates good governance and leadership.


In July 2013 a large population of Silver Gulls (Gulls) and Australian White Ibis (Ibis) sought to establish a rookery on the small island of the Lake Tom Thumb Natural Reserve. The “artificially generated” number of birds is a product of the favourable environment and conditions including a large inland water source, a large and very reliable food and foraging site (the landfill) and ideal habitat with refuge and nesting opportunities (was Lake Neangar, now Tom Thumb), all in close proximity. The City's Parks and Natural Reserves Unit (P&NR) have been monitoring bird activity at both Lake Neangar and Tom Thumb since 2008 and noted increased activity of Gulls and Ibis at Tom Thumb at the commencement of the nesting season this year. Due to amenity impacts on nearby residents, the matter has become the subject of three petitions to Council. Following discussions with the Department of Environment & Primary Industries (DEPI) about how best to approach the matter, Mr Ian Temby, an expert in the management of birds (in particular Silver Gulls), was engaged to provide advice.


PAGE 81

Mr Temby spoke at an onsite community meeting on 15 November 2013 and subsequently produced a report that recommends actions deemed suitable for the situation at Tom Thumb Reserve. Mr Temby’s report (dated 9 December 2013) was presented by City and DEPI staff at a second community meeting held on 10 December 2013. It is estimated that approximately 600 birds are now on the island at Lake Tom Thumb.

Report

Silver Gulls and Australian White Ibis are classified as “Protected Wildlife” under the Wildlife Act 1975. Any attempt to control these species must be conducted in accordance with an Authority to Control Wildlife Permit issued by DEPI. In seeking to obtain a permit, DEPI has asked the City to develop a management plan to detail its proposed approach. Ian Temby’s report offers a recommended approach that is described as "best practice management of gulls and ibis at Lake Tom Thumb". The approach has three primary objectives: 1) Interrupt as soon as possible the nesting process that is occurring on the island at

Lake Tom Thumb; 2) Establish an alternative (more suitable) site for the birds to breed if possible; and

3) Reduce the opportunity for the birds to obtain food from the landfill (which has been

identified as their primary source and hence encourages the birds to remain). In recommending these options, Mr Temby acknowledged that other higher impact options (for the birds) do exist to address the current amenity problem at Lake Tom Thumb for nearby residents. The initial recommended actions however seek to recognise the status of the birds as protected wildlife and the City's obligation and commitment to sustaining and protecting our natural environment. From that perspective the initial approach is considered to be appropriately tempered and balanced. However, as Mr Temby's report indicates, gulls (in particular) have increasingly found refuge in buildings and man-made structures in cities throughout Australia and a possible consequence of the proposed approach will be that the birds will move to another location in the city that then suffers similar impacts. These may or may not be public assets and any impacts on private buildings would legally become the responsibility of the landowner to address. Should Council deem it appropriate to adopt the suggested approach, then the potential for an escalating response must also be recognised. I.E. If the birds cannot be attracted to a location that avoids further amenity problems then higher impact options (on the birds) may have to be considered if moving them on again is ineffective. Further reports would be provided to Council for consideration if and when necessary.


PAGE 82


DEPI has been heavily involved in this process and is continuing to provide technical support to the City and guidance on the permit application process. In particular, Mr Brady Childs of DEPI has been invaluable and extremely supportive of the City's effort to identify an appropriate response to this matter. Two community meetings have occurred to date. Further advice to the community will be provided following Council's consideration of the matter and ongoing observations of the impacts of any adopted response.


There is no current funding allocation specific to this matter. Aside from the report produced by Ian Temby (estimated cost $4-5,000 including visits) the effort to date has been addressed using normal maintenance funds allocated to the Park & Natural Reserves Unit. This effort has included longer and more regular inspections and maintenance works at the site and this is expected to continue for some time; the cost of this is not yet known. Parks and Natural Reserves operational staff will receive additional training in the handling of living and dead birds from DEPI’s Brady Childs.

Conclusion

Addressing the concerns of nearby residents and some users of Lake Tom Thumb in regard to the growing Silver Gull and Ibis population on the island is not straight forward. However, a proposed management response has been developed by an independent expert on the matter that is expected to effectively disrupt the current breeding and feeding habits of the population while acknowledging the status of the birds as protected species. The potential for such an approach to simply 'relocate' the amenity impact of the bird population elsewhere is also acknowledged and other options may still prove necessary depending on the response from the birds should Council adopt the recommendation.

Attachments

1. Management of Bird Problems at Lake Tom Thumb


PAGE 83

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Acknowledge the status of Silver Gulls and Ibis as protected wildlife under the

Wildlife Act 1975. 2. Adopt the management approach recommended by Mr Ian Temby to:

a) Interrupt as soon as possible the nesting process of Silver Gulls and Ibis that is

occurring on the island at Lake Tom Thumb; b) Establish an alternative (more suitable) site for the birds to breed if possible, and;

c) Reduce the opportunity for the birds to obtain food from the landfill (which has

been identified as their primary source and hence encourages the birds to remain).

3. Note that the adopted approach may have implications for other parts of the City

should the birds relocate to areas that cause similar amenity concerns. 4. Acknowledge that other options to reduce the impacts of the Silver Gull and Ibis

populations may be necessary if other amenity concerns arise and note that further reports will be provided should this become the case.

5. Advise the petitioners of Council's decision.

Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2013

PAGE 84

4. PRODUCTIVITY

4.1 INTENSIVE ANIMAL INDUSTRY STUDY


Author Steven Abbott, Strategic Planner Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This report seeks Council endorsement of the Intensive Animal Industries Study (the study). The study is an analysis and planning framework to help minimise the future land use conflicts between intensive animal industries and more sensitive land uses (most notable, dwellings).

Policy Context


Theme 3: Productivity

o Strategic Objective 3.2: A diverse, strong and growing economy supports

community resilience.

Action 3.2.2: Lobby State and Federal Government to improve increased biosecurity and water security and secure the continued viability of the agricultural sector, including protecting productive agricultural and intensive agricultural activities.

Strategy Reference: Rural Areas Strategy 2009 This Strategy provides direction for future planning in the rural areas of the municipality. An implementation action in the strategy is to prepare a study on intensive animal industries within the Rural Living Zone to establish appropriate planning scheme mechanisms (including rezoning, overlay application, and the use of local policy). This is to ensure that environmental impacts of intensive animal industries and the potential for competing land-uses can be effectively managed. Council Policy Reference: Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Clause 21.07: Economic Development


PAGE 85

This policy outlines the need to protect agricultural land, infrastructure and assets, including intensive animal industries. The objectives of this policy emphasise the need to protect rural industry from residential encroachment, as well as to ensure the sustainable development of intensive animal husbandry. Clause 22.02: Rural Dwelling Policies This policy advocates for the protection of intensive agricultural industries by discouraging new dwellings in close proximity unless the dwelling is for the purpose of supporting the existing and/or proposed intensive agricultural use. It also includes a provision that discourages the construction of dwellings within the preferred locations for intensive agricultural industries unless the dwellings are associated with the intensive industries. Regional Strategic Plan Reference: 11.3 Agriculture – Intensive agriculture (Pg. 29 Regional Growth Plan 2013)

‘Intensive agriculture refers to production systems that require high capital inputs in terms of buildings, storage and infrastructure. Examples are poultry and egg production, piggeries, dairy farming and some types of horticulture. Feed needs to be brought in as stocking rates are higher than can be fed on acreage, requiring transport access and movements.

Within the region the most common forms of intensive agriculture are broiler farms, egg production and piggeries. Future expansion of these industries is sought with strong links to other emerging strengths in food processing and freight-related industries.

Areas most suited for further development of these industries are in the north and west of the region where there are large farms with appropriate separation distances for biosecurity and amenity protection. While intensive agriculture is encouraged in these areas, this does not prevent these industries exploring other locational opportunities where appropriate separation distances can be achieved. These industries need to be located with access to water and electricity infrastructure and proximity to processing facilities and markets. Planning for the establishment and expansion of these industries needs to occur in a manner consistent with orderly and proper planning and protection of the environment.’


Intensive agricultural industries and rural dependent industries are important to the future of Greater Bendigo. The municipality’s strategic location on key transport corridors and within a region with strong cropping and grazing as its base, assist in ensuring that the processing and enhancing of these products will remain important. Sustained growth in intensive agriculture requires protection from incompatible development and urban encroachment. Support from policies which enable proper siting and design of these industries to protect residential amenity and environmental quality is also important.


PAGE 86

On 27 July 2011 Council endorsed a project brief to commence a study which: Identifies the locations of existing and proposed intensive animal industries, relative

existing and future rural residential/rural living land (or other potentially incompatible land uses) and associated operational conditions and requirements including buffer areas;

Reviews the current planning provisions which affect intensive animal industries; Identifies areas suitable for future intensive animal industries to inform land use policy

directions and appropriate Planning Scheme response; Identifies areas where an unsustainable trend exists at the interface of rural

residential land and intensive animals industries; and Provides strategic direction for land currently within the Farming, Rural Conservation

and Rural Living Zones which encompass current and future intensive animal industries and consider an appropriate planning regime.

The research, including engagement with the industries, and report have been completed. Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): Council endorsed the project brief on 27 July 2011.

Report

The City of Greater Bendigo understands the issues and concerns created by a dynamic relationship between agricultural industries and more sensitive land uses. Residential development in rural-residential settings coupled with the needs of farming practice to maintain the required market share (approx 4% growth P/A) and regulatory compliance can create conflict between production and amenity. The main issues of concern are caused in instances where land development (including both sensitive and non-sensitive) by-passes the appropriate considerations to effectively manage matters which could later result in conflict (such as nuisance, biosecurity or health). Legislation exists which responds to cases of conflict, however retrospective management of these issues in not an acceptable, or efficient way forward. The Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme is the required mechanism to help minimise such conflicts by triggering the appropriate considerations through a statutory planning process. This includes appropriate State and Local policies, objectives, decision guidelines, referral authority comments and importantly, the opportunity for third party submissions and appeal rights. The purpose of a planning scheme-based intervention response is not to prohibit the further development of land in areas that conflict could occur. Instead, it’s to provide greater certainty for involved parties up-front in the process. It sets a clear policy direction that balances complex and competing community demands.


PAGE 87

The study recommends a Planning Scheme Amendment and other tools to assist implementation. The amendment involves, in appropriate areas of the Farming Zone and Rural Living Zone, increasing the minimum lot size for which no planning permit is required to subdivide land or construct a dwelling. This can be achieved by including a specified minimum lot size within the schedule to the planning zone. The proposed changes will apply to land parcels within 1000 metres (1km) of strategically encouraged intensive animal industries (measured from the land parcel boundary). The basis for the geographic area of ‘strategically encouraged’ will be the Rural Areas Strategy 2009 and Rural Industries Strategic Framework Plan (Cl. 24.07). Within these ‘buffer areas’ a minimum lot size of 80ha in the Farming Zone and 30ha in the Rural Living Zone is recommended. This recommended minimum lot size will be subject to a review process undertaken in collaboration with the various State Government departments (such as RDV and the EPA) and a community engagement program. This will form part of the Planning Scheme Amendment process. The size recommended in the study has been identified because it will appropriately trigger parcels which are close to existing industries but currently exempt from needing a planning permit for a dwelling. The sizes will also provide for adequate space for a suitable design response to be achieved which mitigates conflict if a permit is to be issued. A preliminary area for these changes forms part of the study report as Appendix C. Further refinement of ‘the boundary’ will also form part of the Planning Scheme Amendment and community engagement process. Priority/Importance Medium – The Rural Areas Strategy 2009 highlights the importance of Intensive Animal Industry in the City of Greater Bendigo as well as the conflicts that are arising at the interface between intensive agricultural and rural living/growth areas. The significance and urgency of this issue is growing. This is because the intensive animal industry continues to expand at a faster scale than other agricultural industries within the municipality, while rural residential living continues to prove very attractive as a lifestyle option for residents of a large regional city such as Bendigo. This study is essential to identify the nature and scope of existing and potential conflicts and to develop a management response through planning policy and statutory controls. Timelines: Once the study has been endorsed, the implementation through a Planning Scheme Amendment and community engagement can commence. This will need to form part of the 2014/15 financial year.


PAGE 88

Risk Analysis:

Risk Mitigation

All intensive animal industries may not be identified due to limitations in Council, the industry and government agency records

Data collection investigations were wide, with input from relevant departments of the CoGB, government agencies such as the DEPI and EPA and industry groups such as the Northern Poultry Cluster and Rivalea Pork. If there are cases of any intensive animal industries ‘slipping through the system’ then it is evident that they have not caused any land use conflicts with surrounding properties. They also do not have current planning permits for expansion or change in function.

Recommendations arising from the study are likely to seek changes to planning controls that apply to property within close proximity to intensive animal industries. This could potentially result in landowner objections.

Public consultation and awareness regarding the purpose and intentions of the study will form part of the Planning Scheme Amendment process. One-on-one meetings with potentially affected landowners, a number of community information sessions and the opportunity to lodge submissions will be undertaken. If objections are received, the study will then be tested at an independent panel hearing prior to a final decision being recommended to Council.


Internal Consultation: Internal units including Statutory Planning, Economic Development, Building and Property, Asset Planning & Design and Valuations have been consulted to inform the data collection (both qualitative and quantitative) that underpins the study. A collaborative approach between the Economic Development unit and the Strategy unit has enabled in-depth engagement with existing intensive animal industries within Greater Bendigo. Further testing of the recommendations has also been undertaken between the Strategy unit and the Statutory Planning unit to ensure the best way approach is taken.


PAGE 89

External Consultation: Industry specialists and regulatory authorities such as the DEPI and EPA have formed part of the engagement throughout the preparation of the study. Importantly, the City of Greater Bendigo formed a close relationship with the Northern Poultry Cluster Pty Ltd to assist in the engagement with all of the large poultry farms in Greater Bendigo. This was instrumental in gaining access to farms and intimately understanding key issues and opportunities or farming in the region. Similar engagement was also undertaken in the pork industry, mainly through Rivalea Farms (Australia’s largest Pork producer). External consultation was also undertaken with all of the surrounding municipalities to understand the regional context to the industries, such as transport connections, markets and the location of new farms. It has been suggested that, if implemented, the study could form a best practice approach to managing these issues across regional Victoria.


The study has been undertaken internally by the Strategy unit in close collaboration with the Economic Development unit and in-kind support from the ‘Northern Poultry Cluster’. Therefore, other than staff time, no additional resources were required. It is envisaged that the Planning Scheme Amendment and supporting documentation will also be undertaken ‘in-house’.

Conclusion

The intensive animal industry is an important element of the City of Greater Bendigo’s economy. The growing nature of this industry, together with continuing expansion of residential and rural residential development is leading to conflicts that must be managed and mitigated. A focused study was required to inform and coordinate the planned and sustainable development of intensive animal industry. Endorsement is now required to commence the implementation of the framework.

Attachments

1. Greater Bendigo Intensive Animal Industries Study

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council endorse the Greater Bendigo Intensive Animal Industries Study.

Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2013

PAGE 90

5. SUSTAINABILITY

Nil.

Good Governance and Decision-Making - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2013

PAGE 91

6. GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DECISION-MAKING

6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION


Author Leeanne Taig, Administration Assistant, Project Coordination Responsible Marg Allan, Director Organisation Support 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 Excl) Delegated

Officer Date

Signed

CT000082 Lighting Upgrade of Multiple Sites

Archie’s Electrical Contractor

202,061.00 Darren Fuzzard 11/11/2013

CT000092 Maintenance Works at Various Pools

Bendigo Aquatic Services Pty Ltd

100,526.20 Richard Morrison 15/11/2013

CT000087 Supply of Pay and Display Ticket Machines

Cale Australia Pty Ltd 153,881.28 Richard Morrison 28/11/2013


PAGE 92

6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES


Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer Director

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 93

Report

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type Councillors' Forum

Meeting Date 19 November 2013

Matters discussed 1. New Bushfire Controls 2. Extranet demonstration 3. Update on food services 4. Stadium Christmas function 5. Birds at Lake Tom Thumb 6. Overlooking at Knape Street, Long Gully 7. North Bendigo Recreation Reserve Committee 8. Booking of cars for sale 9. Pokies sign 10. Economic Development Strategy 11. Insurance for hall committees 12. Budget suggestions 13. Avenue of Honour, Kangaroo Flat 14. Drafting of legislation 15. Calder Highway 16. Swimming pools 17. Table tennis stadium 18. Infrastructure forum 19. Meeting with Minister Walsh 20. Meeting with Canterbury Park Group

Attendees/Apologies

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

Staff/ Community Representatives

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

Conflict of Interest disclosures

Matter No. Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting

3. Cr Williams Yes


PAGE 94

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type Governance Meeting


Matters discussed 1. Swimming pool attendances 2. Organisation structure 3. Corporate calendar 4. Agendas and Minutes of Advisory Committees 5. Amicus 6. Local Law No. 8 7. Approaches to Ministers 8. Governance recommendations from Independent Review 9. Councillor request system 10. Councillors' budget and expenses report 11. Environmental Taskforce 12. Laptop computers

Attendees/Apologies

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


Mr Craig Niemann Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell


Matter No. Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting Nil


PAGE 95

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type Farming Advisory Committee


Matters discussed 1. Rural Strategy - situation east of Campaspe River 2. Update on Greater Bendigo Rural Areas Strategy 3. Developing a Community Rural Strategy for CoGB

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr James Williams


Rachel Isaac Trevor Budge/ Mick Crapper John Scott Jim Long Ross McKinstry Maurie Sharkey Alan Stevens Apologies: Debbie Thewlis Jenny Pendlebury/ Rod Luke Craig Sharam Courtney Smith




PAGE 96

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type Tour of development at Bendigo Art Gallery


Matters discussed 1. Onsite tour

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Barry Lyons Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Campbell Cr James Williams Cr Mark Weragoda


Mr Stan Liacos Ms Rachel Lee Mr Darren Fuzzard Mr Peter Davies




PAGE 97

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type Councillor's Forum


Matters discussed 1. Planning matters and review of draft Ordinary Meeting agenda 2. Aquatic facility 3. Independent Review Planning delegations 4. Community Infrastructure Forum 5. Mitchell Street 6. Confidential items 7. Residential Strategy 8. North Bendigo 9. Cars for sale Local Law 10. Rosalind Park bats 11. Cost of swimming pools 12. VCAT hearings 13. Rail trail 14. Golden Square pool 15. Rural Strategy 16. Meeting with Minister Walsh 17. Service contracts and project management efficiencies 18. Overview of Emergency Management Cluster Pilot 19. Integrated Corporate Planning timetable

Attendees/Apologies

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


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




PAGE 98

RECOMMENDATION

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


PAGE 99

6.3 BENDIGO LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13


Author Kerrie Crowley, Livestock Exchange Manager Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Director, Presentation and Assets Director

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the Livestock Exchange's performance in 2012/13.

Policy Context


City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013–2017:

Theme: 5 Good Governance and Decision Making

Strategic Objective: 5.2 The financial and physical resources of the organisation are managed efficiently and well.

2013-2014 Action: 5.2.5 Continue to support major City business units to increase their revenue streams and their financial independence.


The Bendigo Livestock Exchange is an NSQA and EU accredited sheep, cattle and pig selling complex which conforms to the National Saleyard Quality Assurance Program and Occupational Health & Safety Management System for saleyards. The Exchange is located 12 kilometres north of Bendigo at Huntly. Weekly sheep and cattle and monthly pig sales are conducted throughout the year. The Livestock Exchange is one of the largest sheep and lamb selling centres in Victoria transacting a quarter of the State's sheep and lambs that go through saleyards. Approximately 1.2 million sheep and lambs, 15,000 cattle and 2,500 pigs are yarded annually. This throughput represents an estimated sales value of $160 million. The sheep, cattle and pig sales at the Bendigo facility generate around $1 million in revenue to the City each year.


PAGE 100

Report

Key Achievements in 2012/13

Throughput numbers remained as forecast despite flock and herd numbers yet to recover to pre drought figures.

Achieved re accreditation to the National Saleyards Quality Assurance (NSQA) and European Union (EU) standards.

All weekly prime sheep, lamb and cattle markets, monthly pig sales and special store sales conducted as scheduled.

Successfully completed Meat & Livestock Australia research project to implement an RFID based system for reading sheep at the Bendigo Livestock Exchange.

Secured a $112,000 Federal government grant under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity funding to improve access to the yards for heavy vehicles.

Acknowledged by animal welfare group for efforts and achievements towards animal welfare compliance and for setting an example for all saleyards to follow.

Australian Pork Limited voted Bendigo the best small saleyard for pig pass compliance nationally.

Installed static screen to reduced effluent treatment costs.

Attracted lambs for sale from wider catchment area including Tasmania and Broken Hill.

Description Throughput 12/13

Sheep & Lambs 1,119,952

Cattle 15,399

Pig & Calf 3,862

Resources Income Saleyard Revenue 1,008,325 Rental income 9,068 Other Income 4,695 Grants 24,536 Total Revenue 1,046,624


PAGE 101

Expenditure $ Employee Benefits (e.g. wages) 278,406

Agency Staff 162,009

Utilities 107,469

Contract Service Fees 122,874

Chemicals 30,279

Insurance 8,980

Consultant 10,709

Plant & Equipment 11,197

Depreciation 36,535

Maintenance 10,486

Other Expenses 35,538

Sub Total 849,644 Internal Charges (Finance, IT, HR, Records etc) 99,439

Internal Rent 190,000

Sub Total 301,423 Total Expenses 1,151,067 Net Return to CoGB (excluding internal rent & charges)

$ 196,980

Staff

Full-time 2

Part-time 3

FTE 4

Conclusion

The Bendigo Livestock Exchange continues to operate as a leader in its field at a local, State and National level and offers significant direct and indirect economic return to the municipality at little cost to the ratepayers.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council notes the positive performance of the Bendigo Livestock Exchange in 2012/13 and its ongoing significant contribution to the regional community.


PAGE 102

6.4 DELEGATION OF TOWN PLANNING POWERS - A RESPONSE TO THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW


Author Ross Douglas, Manager Statutory Planning Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

The Independent Review of the City of Greater Bendigo called for a review of the current deed of delegation. In response to the growth in the number of permit applications being reported to the Council the current delegation regime should be refined. The increased rate of non-delegated decisions can be traced to the increased number of applications and the increasing complexity of urban Bendigo which is changing the planning landscape. Adjusting the current deed of delegation will bring about efficiencies in the planning approvals process and will reduce the workload on councillors and council officers alike. Only a modest change is recommended, namely the current threshold for non-delegated decision should be raised so that permit applications that receive three or less objections can be considered under delegation.

Policy Context


Planning for Growth


Productivity


Report

Council relies on an instrument of delegation to delegate certain town planning powers, discretions and functions to council officers. This includes the power to issue planning permits. The Independent Review of the City of Greater Bendigo recommends that the instrument of delegation be reviewed with the aim of achieving an “increased focus on customer service”. Implicit in this recommendation is the belief that the planning approvals process could be made more efficient by adjusting the current instrument of delegation.


PAGE 103

The current instrument of delegation is structured around two main trigger points, namely whether a permit application has attracted one or more objections, or whether the officer wishes to refuse to grant a permit. Under the instrument of delegation if one or both of these criteria are triggered then the permit application must be reported to a meeting of the Council for a decision. In 2012/2013 a total of 7 per cent of all permit applications were decided on by the Council. This figure is expected to rise in the future as urban Bendigo grows and the planning landscape becomes more complex. Deciding on permit applications in the Council chamber rather than at the level of the planning department has practical consequences in terms of the efficiency of the planning system. Put simply it is quicker for a council officer to process a permit application under delegated powers than to report the matter to a Council meeting. An applicant can expect to be delayed if their application attracts an objection merely due to the time needed for the council officer to prepare a report and fit it into the Council’s meeting cycle. Just as importantly, each non-delegated decision brings with it an opportunity cost for councillors. Time spent focusing on a permit application draws councillors away from other council business. A considerable amount of the agenda paper at each Council meeting is devoted to permit applications that are arguably not of strategic importance to the municipality. How might the current instrument of delegation be refined to streamline the permit process and reduce the decision-making burden on councillors? There are conceivably many ways to frame an instrument of delegation. A snap-shot reveals that a wide variety of delegation models are in operation across Victorian councils. Two main variables are discernible amongst the different models: first, the threshold number of objections that trigger a non-delegated decision and, second, whether the council uses a panel/committee system for some types of decision-making. The discussion paper attached to this report examines some of these models and describes how they might be adopted by this council. Each model has its pros and cons. Some options, such as the use of a committee structure, are relatively complex and would be a significant departure from the current instrument of delegation. The discussion paper aims to stimulate debate about the relative merits of each model. Council officers have an opinion about the current instrument of delegation. We believe that it would be beneficial to adjust the instrument of delegation to reduce the number of non-delegated decision. Currently too many permit applications are reported to the Council for a decision. This is detrimental to the efficient operation of the planning process and places an unreasonable burden on councillors. We believe that the instrument of delegation should be revised using a model of “least change”. That is, a modest refinement of the instrument of delegation should be undertaken so as to increase the threshold for delegation from one or more objections to three or less objections. We reject the more expansive options for change identified in the discussion paper, such as implementing a committee structure, on the grounds that such options aren’t necessary to achieving a streamlined permit process.


PAGE 104

The purpose of re-calibrating the instrument of delegation so that there is a greater emphasis on reporting important permit applications to the Council. In the past an important permit application may have meant an application that attracted a single objection. But now multiple objections are increasingly being lodged against permit applications. This is resulting in more permit applications being reported to the Council than in the past. We are advocating for a change to the instrument of delegation in order to strike the right balance between, on the one hand the desire to streamline the planning permit process, and on the other hand community expectations about the role of the Council in that process. We believe that setting the objection threshold to three or more objections achieves that balance. Objection thresholds for delegation purposes vary amongst other councils. Many municipalities of comparable size to Greater Bendigo have objection thresholds higher than contained in this council’s instrument of delegation. In the case of inner metropolitan councils, objection thresholds of five or more objections are the norm. Greater Bendigo’s threshold of one or more objections is a relatively low benchmark in comparison. It’s possible to predict the consequence of increasing the objection threshold to three or less objections. The attached discussion paper uses 2012/2013 data to show how many less applications would have been reported to the Council in that year had the objection threshold been set differently. Specifically, if the objection threshold had been set at three or less objections then approximately 50 per cent less applications would have been dealt with by the Council. This is a significant outcome that would have had a meaningful impact on the volume of permit applications unnecessarily making their way to the Council meeting agenda in that year. It’s reasonable to periodically review the instrument of delegation to ensure that it is working to council’s best advantage. The current delegation regime hasn’t altered since at least 2006. It’s time to make modest changes to the deed of delegation so that relatively minor permit applications don’t have a disproportionate impact on the workload of council officers and councillors. Implementation Many applications are currently subject to public submissions and the expectation of those submitters is that those applications would be considered by Council. Consequently it is proposed that the amended delegation only be utilised for new applications received following the change.

Conclusion

An examination of the current deed of delegation suggests that a modest change to the objection threshold is justified. A re-calibration of existing delegated powers is needed to keep pace with the volume and complexity of planning permit applications received by council. A good deed of delegation is critical to ensuring that council undertakes its regulatory town planning functions in an efficient manner.


PAGE 105

Attachments

Delegation of Town Planning Powers - A Discussion Paper.

Amended deed of delegation.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to amend the deed of delegation for planning matters so that permit applications that receive three or less objections can be considered under delegation.

2. That any recommendations for refusal continue to be reported to Council for decision.


PAGE 106

7. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.


PAGE 107

8. NOTICES OF MOTION

8.1 NOTICE OF MOTION: INDEPENDENT REVIEW RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CITY FUTURES DIRECTORATE

CR ELISE CHAPMAN

That in accordance with the Council's decision to consider the recommendations of the Independent Review as soon as possible and in order to increase efficiency, the Implementation Plan outlined in Recommendation # 8 of the Review be prepared for consideration by the Council as part of next year's budget deliberations.

Officer Comment (Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer) Recommendation 8 is written in two parts: Investigate the option to separate the Economic Development Unit, Tourism, the Bendigo Art Gallery, The Capital and Major Events from City Futures into a separate entity. This investigation must include an implementation plan which would provide strategies and direction for the entity and underlying Business Units to aspire to become a self-funding operation within five years of separation. It must also include a plan to incorporate Major Projects into another Directorate of CoGB. The implementation plan to aspire to be self-funding within five years of separation referred to in the second part is considered premature as the investigation to date shows that the outcomes proposed by Aurecon can be achieved effectively without separation. Further information is proposed to be provided to Councillors and if Council consider that resources are required for the development of an implementation plan for separation and self-funding such an allocation can be made in the 2014/2015 budget.


PAGE 108

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

10. MAYOR'S REPORT

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

Nil.

181213 agenda

Documents

Transcript of 181213 agenda